Workers’ Compensation – Causation – Expert Testimony Unnecessary – Eyewitness TestimonyMcCrary v. King Bio, Inc. Given that the situation at issue here was “uncomplicated,” that plaintiff’s wrist pain appeared “immediately” after her work-place accident and has continued since that time, that one of plaintiff’s co-workers observed the accident and corroborated plaintiff’s account of the circumstances surrounding her injury, that plaintiff promptly reported the injury to her superiors and sought medical treatment, and that plaintiff did not have any pain in her wrist prior to the injury, we conclude that plaintiff was not required to present expert testimony in order to show a causal link between the injury and her wrist pain.
You have clicked on a link to
information that is
Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here.
Interested in Subscribing?
Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.
- Print and Digital -
Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
Published: February 8, 2013
Time posted: 5:17 pm