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, 568-69, 247 S.E.2d 905, 911 (1978). Thus, “[t]he test is . . . whether the ‘opinion required expert skill or knowledge in the medical or pathologic field about which a person of ordinary experience would not be capable of satisfactory conclusions, unaided by expert information from one learned in the medical profession.’ ” Id. at 569, 247 S.E.2d at 911 (quoting State v. Powell, 238 N.C. 527, 530, 78 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1953)). In the instant case, both Dr. Radisch and Dr. Gleckman offered evidence via testimony and opinion consistent with the testimony and opinion previously allowed by this Court. See State v. McAbee, 120 N.C. App. 674, 686, 463 S.E.2d 281, 288 (1995) (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 662, 467 S.E.2d
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing two pathologists to offer their opinion as to whether childs injuries were intentionally or accidentally inflicted holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action