holding that "evidence elicited by plaintiff's hypothetical question was not competent because it required Dr. de la Torre to assume the truth of facts that the record does not support"
Summary of this case from Huffman v. Moore County1997
holding that "evidence elicited by plaintiff's hypothetical question was not competent because it required Dr. de la Torre to assume the truth of facts that the record does not support"
Summary of this case from Huffman v. Moore CountyFull title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
However, an expert opinion solicited through the assumption of facts unsupported by the evidence of record is…
Yingling v. Bank of Am., Emp'r, Self-Insured (Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc.Finally, Dr. Lane opined that the 2008 fall contributed to, accelerated, and exacerbated plaintiff's pain.…