in February 2006. Following Mr. Hawley’s death in June 2007, Moses Cone Hospital brought an action to recover Mr. Hawley’s unpaid medical expenses from Ms. Hawley. Relying upon the “Doctrine of Necessaries,” the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Moses Cone Hospital. On appeal, Ms. Hawley argues that the “Doctrine of Necessaries” is (1) inconsistent with article X, section 4 of the N.C. Constitution, (2)contrary to the State’s public policy favoring marriage, and (3) a violation of the State’s contractual privity laws. The “Doctrine of Necessaries” establishes that a spouse is liable for the necessary expenses incurred by the other spouse, including those expenses incurred by medical necessity. Alamance County Hospital v. Neighbors, 315 N.C. 362, 338 S.E.2d 87 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Stemming from the common law allocation of
holding that medical treatment is included in the traditional definition of necessaries holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  holding that the greater offense is  by definition the same for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract