In fact, it is so favorable that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is enough to carry the day. Consider Clements v. Norfolk Southern.

Plaintiff, an employee of a railroad, either slipped off or fell off a tire. How he came to be on it is not made clear but the tire was four feet in diameter and off it he went. At trial he testified that prior to the accident he had been free of back pain but was afflicted by pain, and a herniated disk, thereafter. Though he had no expert willing to opine that his fall was the cause of his sore back the court held "[i]t is not beyond the province of an ordinary person that falling off a four foot high tire could cause a herniated disk."

While it has long been the case that "experts" can be found who are willing to testify that tying one's work boots will readily cause a herniated disk or that falling off the roof of a two story building can't possibly cause a herniated disk - and one side or the other of every scenario in between - courts ought not give up on the quest for sound science in such cases. That's because science, at long last, is starting to test various theories concerning the causes and appropriate treatment for herniated disks. So far, evidence-based assessments are giving the "province of an ordinary person" a thrashing.