any competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission’s conclusions of law.” Deese v. Champion Int’l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). Defendants argue first that plaintiff “provided no scientific evidence tending to show the presence of asbestosis [sic] in any environment in which he worked at Ross & Witmer or, for that fact, any other employer.” This Court has squarely held that “there is no need for such expert testimony.” Vaughn v. Insulating Servs., 165 N.C. App. 469, 473, 598 S.E.2d 629, 631, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 75, 605 S.E.2d 150 (2004). See also Abernathy v. Sandoz Chems./Clariant Corp., 151 N.C. App. 252, 259, 565 S.E.2d 218, 223, cert. denied, 356 N.C. 432, 572 S.E.2d 421 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In Abernathy, this Court held that “competent
holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk holding that under michigan law evidence of other products to which the plaintiff may have been exposed is relevant to rebut the plaintiffs claim holding exhaustion was not required where the plan failed to notify the plaintiff regarding the availability of a contractual remedy holding that scientific evidence was not required regarding the extent of exposure to asbestos when deciding where the plaintiff was last injuriously exposed under nc gen stat  9757 holding that scientific evidence must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence concerning admission of scientific testimony or evidence ie dre 401 402 403 702 and 703 and be relevant and reliable