Court Opinion

ID: 9625226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:32:26.611461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:03.759349
License: Public Domain

Judge CLARK
dissenting.
The trial court sustained defendant’s objection to the following question: Would you state what your chiropractic diagnosis was after your initial examination of Mr. Currence on this occasion? In my opinion this was prejudicial error.
Dr. Logan examined plaintiff in his office on the same day of the collision in question and regularly thereafter. He previously testified that he had made an initial chiropractic diagnosis. After the ruling of the trial court, the jury was excused for the purpose of discussing the ruling; the trial judge referred to Allen v. Hinson, supra, and stated: “I don’t think you can get the diagnosis in unless you have competent medical evidence. ... I don’t think you can go any further with this doctor.”
I am aware of the basic rule that an exception to an exclusion of evidence will not be sustained when it is not made to appear what the excluded evidence would have been, but this basic rule does not apply when the exclusion is based on the competency of the witness to testify as distinguished from the admissibility of his testimony. Stansbury’s N.C. Evidence (Brandis Ed.) § 26.
*133The question asked for his opinion as to plaintiff’s injury or condition within the scope of the field of chiropractic, and not far beyond this field as in Allen v. Hinson, supra. Dr. Logan was qualified and competent to answer the question and should have been allowed to do so. I vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.