The date of the alleged injury was in 2003. Defendant therefore argues that the trial court did not err in excluding Dr. Frost’s testimony. I agree. In Purvis, this Court held that an expert’s testimony was properly excluded where the expert’s only knowledge of the locality came four years after the alleged injury. Id. at 480-81, 624 S.E.2d at 385. We r s testimony was properly excluded per Purvis and thus plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient expert testimony to defeat defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and I would affirm the ruling of the trial court on that ground. 3 . The fact that plaintiff’s expert relied on internet research is not a sufficient ground to exclude an expert’s testimony. See Coffman v. Roberson, 153 N.C. App. 618, 624-25, 571 S.E.2d 255, 259 (2002)
holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted holding that an alj is entitled to rely on vocational experts testimony that is based on assumptions that are supported by evidence in the record holding that experts may rely in part on internet research holding that a trial court has discretion to qualify experts and rely on various methods in making a valuation determination holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court