Court Opinion

ID: 9626392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:10:41.749312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:26.646759
License: Public Domain

*338Judge Lewis
dissenting.
Because I feel that the Rules of Evidence control in this case and should not be diluted by other statutes, I respectfully dissent.
In State v. Parks, 96 N.C. App. 589, 386 S.E.2d 748 (1989), this Court acknowledged our standard of review of a trial court’s ruling under Rule 702: ,
A trial court is afforded wide latitude in applying Rule 702 and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the determination whether the witness has the requisite level of skill to qualify as an expert witness is ordinarily within the exclusive province of the trial judge, and “[a] finding by the trial judge that the witness possesses the requisite skill will not be reversed on appeal unless there is no evidence to support it.”
Parks, 96 N.C. App. at 592, 386 S.E.2d at 750 (quoting State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984)). Furthermore, ohr cases demonstrate that “[i]t is not necessary that an expert be experienced with the identical subject matter at issue or be a specialist, licensed, or even engaged in a specific profession.” State v. Evangelista, 319 N.C. 152, 163-64, 353 S.E.2d 375, 383 (1987). It is enough that the expert witness “because of his expertise is in a better position to have an opinion on the subject than is the trier of fact.” State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 569, 247 S.E.2d 905, 911 (1978). Additionally, “ [i]t is the function of cross-examination to expose any weaknesses in [expert opinion] testimony.” Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 244, 311 S.E.2d 559, 571 (1984).
The majority states that Dr. Gamboa’s testimony “invades the field reserved for the practice of medicine in this State.” However, in Maloney v. Hospital Systems, 45 N.C. App. 172, 262 S.E.2d 680, disc. review denied, 300 N.C. 375, 267 S.E.2d 676 (1980), this Court held that nurses are qualified to render expert opinions as to medical causation, even though they are not medical doctors. Maloney, 45 N.C. App. at 177-79, 267 S.E.2d at 683-84. The Court reached this decision after noting that “the giving of expert testimony should not be limited to those witnesses who are licensed in some particular field of endeavor” and finding “no basis or justification for treating medical experts differently — for establishing a preferred or exclusive class among medical expert witnesses.” Id. at 178, 267 S.E.2d at 684. This holding was subsequently adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 294, 457 S.E.2d 841, 858, cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1995).
*339I find the reasoning and holding of the Court in Maloney controlling in the present case. I believe we are bound to follow the majority of states which permit a psychologist to testify as to medical causation as long as she or he possesses the requisite knowledge to be found an expert under Rule 702 by the trial judge. See Hutchinson v. American Family Mut. Ins., 514 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1994). Defendants have indisputably provided more than ample evidence that Dr. Gamboa is an expert by training and experience. Her testimony would assist the trier of fact, if they found it credible, after cross-examination. Her testimony is admissible as the trial judge found.
Dr. Gamboa testified that she is a psychologist who specializes in brain injuries, has both a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate degree in psychology, is currently on a brain injury team at a rehabilitation hospital, and is on a list of neuropsychologists established by the Department of Public Instruction who are qualified to diagnose brain injuries. These educational and professional accomplishments are more than sufficient to enable Dr. Gamboa to testify that in her expert opinion, plaintiff did not have a closed head injury as a result of this accident. The jury, if it so chooses, may then take the fact that she is not a medical doctor into account when determining how much weight to give her testimony.
Because I find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in allowing the testimony in this case, I would affirm its ruling.