Gallimore v. Daniels Construction Co.

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendants contend that the Commission erred in allowing plaintiff to testify concerning his conversations with persons in the Duke University Compensation Office. Defendants assert such testimony was hearsay, material and prejudicial. Specifically defendants cite the following:

Q. (Mr. Lawing, attorney for plaintiff) Go ahead tell us about that.

A. (Plaintiff) Okay. They had me up — the bed there April 29 to be in, but they couldn’t admit me on account of the— there was no authorization of insurance to pay for the bill and . . .

Mr. Bauman (attorney for defendants): Objection as…