Ellis v. Rouse
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Flaherty’s opinion testimony because the testimony fell within the statutory limitations governing expert testimony by chiropractors.
G.S. 90-157.2 states:
A Doctor of Chiropractic, for all legal purposes, shall be considered an expert in his field and, when properly qualified, may testify in a court of law as to etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and disability, including anatomical, neurological, physiological, and pathological considerations within the scope of chiropractic. (Emphasis added.)
Chiropractic is defined by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. BarnhillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Smith v. BuckhramCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988