holding that the plaintiff introduced sufficient causation evidence where the plaintiff's expert testified that if the defendant physician had called a neurosurgeon to examine the plaintiff three days earlier, "`it is quite likely that the patient may have suffered less permanent damage'"
Summary of this case from Lord v. Beerman1984
holding that the plaintiff introduced sufficient causation evidence where the plaintiff's expert testified that if the defendant physician had called a neurosurgeon to examine the plaintiff three days earlier, "`it is quite likely that the patient may have suffered less permanent damage'"
Summary of this case from Lord v. Beermanstating one factor "quite likely" caused injury held sufficient
Summary of this case from Cherry v. HarrellFull title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1984
Before addressing Mastrom's argument that the restrictive covenants are valid and enforceable, we note that…
Town of Pine Knoll Shores v. EvansIn both cases, the Court of Appeals discussed the theory of economic waste, which "`recognizes the need to…