Thomas v. Barnhill
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by allowing the chiropractor to testify about matters outside the scope of his field of expertise. We disagree.
Defendant objects to the following diagnosis testimony by the chiropractor:
Moderate severe strain of the cervical spine with complicating subluxation complex syndrome of the cervical spine with associated radiculitis and myofascitis. Moderate severe strain to the mid thoracic area and moderate strain to the lumbar area with complicating subluxation syndromes of the above areas with associated myofascitis.
We note that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McLean v. McLeanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- Ingram v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Smith v. BuckhramCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Ellis v. RouseCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ferrell v. Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- Wooten v. Warren Ex Rel. GilmerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Winston v. BrodieCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Hampton v. KPM LLCDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2019
- Jorge Suarez v. Camden Property TrustCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.