in the absence of physical symptoms and, if so, whether the error was plain error. Defendant argues the statement reveals that Dr. Conroy reached her opinion because she believed C.H.’s statements and therefore, her testimony was a “direct comment on [C.H.’s] veracity.” The State responds that Dr. Conroy’s comment was a hypothetical scenario inapplicable to this case. “In a sexual offense prosecution involving a child victim, the trial court should not admit expert opinion that sexual abuse has in fact occurred because, absent physical evidence supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse, such testimony is an impermissible opinion regarding the victim’s credibility.” Stancil, 355 N.C. at 266-67, 559 S.E.2d at 789. See also State v. Grover, 142 N.C. App. 411, 417-19, 543 S.E.2d 179, 182-84 (<HOLDING>), aff’d per curiam, 354 N.C. 354, 553 S.E.2d
holding the experts opinion testimony lacked a proper foundation when there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse and the experts admitted that their conclusions were based solely on the childrens statements that they had been abused holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding in a case where there was no evidence that the expert was incompetent or that the petitioners lawyers had any reason to question the experts professional qualifications that it was objectively reasonable for  trial counsel to rely upon the experts diagnosis holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable