85, 97, reh’g denied, 327 N.C. 644, 399 S.E.2d 133 (1990)). Summary judgment may be proper on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim “[w]here the plaintiff fail[s] to forecast evidence of medical documentation to substantiate alleged ‘ “severe emotional distress” ’ or ‘ “severe and disabling” psychological problems[.]’ ” Dobson v. Harris, 134 N.C. App. 573, 579, 521 S.E.2d 710, 715 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 352 N.C. 77, 530 S.E.2d 829 (2000) (quoting Waddle v. Sparks, 331 N.C. 73, 85, 414 S.E.2d 22, 28 (1992)). “To have a jury trial . . . plaintiff only had to present competent evidence that he suffered emotional distress and that it resulted from defendant’s conduct.” McKnight v. Simpson’s Beauty Supply, Inc., 86 N.C. App. 451, 454, 358 S.E.2d 107, 109 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the trooper alleged that
holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute holding that the plaintiffs contention that she was shocked and upset after her unexpected termination was sufficient to survive motion to dismiss claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress nonetheless claim was dismissed for failure to show that conduct was outrageous recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress