Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 . . . specifically states that the expert must be familiar with the standard of care in the same or similar community ‘at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.’ ” Id. at 480, 624 S.E.2d at 385 (emphasis added) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12). Although plaintiff’s expert did not wait four years before gathering information on Wake County, he still failed to comply with the statute insofar as it requires knowledge at the time of the injury. Dr. Frost even testified that the time between the injury and his research on the standard of care in Wake County that he “would expect that there were some ... changes” in the standard. Cf. Roush v. Kennon, 188 N.C. App. 570, 576, -S.E.2d. -, - (No. COA07-209 filed 5 February 2008) (<HOLDING>). I would therefore hold that plaintiff’s 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care (B) holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an experts research even after his or her deposition revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred (C) holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider (D) holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute (E) holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care
Output (English): holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care