T.K.

ORDER

The opinion of this court filed in this case on January 3, 2002, slip op. at 39 [ 276 F.3d 1083 ], is amended as follows:

At slip op. at 50 [ 276 F.3d at 1089 ], second full paragraph, the final clause of the first sentence (“indeed, no such theory had ever been published”) is modified to state: “indeed, no theory linking extensive malleting to FES had ever been published.”

At slip op. at 53 [ 276 F.3d at 1090 ], first full paragraph, the final two sentences and following citation (beginning with “It is generally not sufficient ...” and continu *603 ing through the end of the paragraph) are deleted. The paragraph break at the end of the paragraph is also deleted, so the next sentence of what was the second paragraph (“The district court was correct ..continues with no paragraph break.

At slip op. at 53 [ 276 F.3d at 1090-91 ], final paragraph, the first sentence (beginning “Furthermore, none of the defendants’ ... ”) is deleted. In the second sentence of the paragraph, the second clause (“and particularly its requirement of testimony that professional standards were violated,”) is deleted.

With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny panel rehearing.…