Brooks v. Hayes
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
At trial, plaintiff presented an expert urologist’s testimony. Defendant argues that much of this testimony was erroneously allowed into evidence, especially testimony regarding the possibility of recanalization or intermittent recanalization after defendant’s vasectomy.
A vasectomy is performed by removing a portion of the canal through which sperm travels, called the vas. The urologist testified that after a vasectomy, recanalization, which is the natural reconnection of the severed ends of the vas, is medically possible. As a result of the recanalization, the patient is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- Elliott v. OwenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Barbecue Inn, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. CoppedgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- State ex rel. Williams v. CoppedgeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992