 Because it was unclear whether treating physicians should have recognized the syndrome for treatment purposes, appellant was entitled to prove by expert testimony the standard of care against which appellees were to be held.And as appellees could not escape liability if it was foreseeable that appellant would suffer further injury, appellant was entitled to prove that appellees' conduct proximately caused her injuries, even if the parent's intervening act was the actual cause.Finally, appellant was entitled to show that appellees failed to exercise due care in not reporting her injuries to authorities who would have shielded her from further harm.