Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): contact” with him throughout the examination, and that nothing he observed during his sexual abuse exam was inconsistent with what P. H. and J. H. had told him. When asked whether P. H. was “consistent with what he was saying” throughout the examination, the pediatrician answered in the affirmative. Finally, with respect to J. H.’s statements to him, the pediatrician testified, “No matter how we asked the questions, it was very consistent all the time.” We decline to find plain error based on the admission of this testimony. As an initial matter, the pediatrician’s testimony concerning the children’s eye contact and the consistency of their statements with the sexual abuse exam did not constitute improper bolstering. See Harris v. State, 279 Ga. App. 570, 572 (1) (631 SE2d 772) (2006) (<HOLDING>) (punctuation and footnote omitted); Morris v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an insurance company could not deny a claim for longterm disability benefits based on a lack of objective medical evidence when the original policy did not refer to the objective medical evidence standard and never defined that term (B) holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness (C) holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence (D) holding that it is not improper bolstering for a witness to express an opinion as to whether medical or other objective evidence in the case is consistent with the victims story (E) holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct
Output (English): holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence