Crawford v. Fayez
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
Plaintiffs assign error to the admission of testimony by defendant’s former patients and to the court’s instructions to the jury. We find no error in the trial below.
At trial, five of defendant’s former patients were permitted to testify, over plaintiffs’ objection, that defendant had informed them of Medrol’s possible side effects, including bone damage. The trial court admitted this testimony for the “limited purposes of showing routine practice of the defendant as it relates to information passed to these patients who were prescribed Medrol and any possible side effects…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western GermanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977
- Barber v. Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Perrin v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Weil v. SeltzerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
- State v. RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. FairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Long v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. ChavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. TappeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Ligon v. Southside Cardiology AssociatesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.