earlier and lessened the seriousness of the injuries resulting from that perforation. In support of this claim, plaintiff relies upon the expert testimony of a nurse, Rosalyn Marie Harris-Offutt. Defendants, however, argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because (1) Ms. Harris-Offutt was not qualified to testify as an expert witness under Rule 702(b)(2) of the Rules of Evidence, and (2) Ms. Harris-Offutt, as a nurse, is not qualified to testify regarding medical causation. In opposing a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that her expert witness is competent to testify and, in the absence of such a showing, summary judgment is properly granted. See Weatherford v. Glassman, 129 N.C. App. 618, 623, 500 S.E.2d 466, 469 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The question. before this Court is,
holding that deposition testimony offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case must reveal that the witness is competent to testify as to the matters at issue holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived