the weight of the trailer arms was supported by plaintiff’s own testimony that the trailer arms weighed “about twenty - maybe twenty-five pounds.” The Commission was entitled to find based on plaintiffs testimony that she was exceeding her work restrictions when she injured her back. That finding, in conjunction with Dr. Harley’s unchallenged expert testimony that plaintiff was at an increased risk of injury if she exceeded her work restrictions, supported the Commission’s conclusion that a causal connection existed between plaintiff’s false representation and her 18 July 2011 back injury. We, therefore, hold that the Commission did not err in denying plaintiff’s claim for worker’s compensation based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12.1. See Freeman, 189 N.C. App. at 47-48, 657 S.E.2d at 399 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff alternatively argues that N.C. Gen.
holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases holding that causal connection was established by expert testimony that plaintiffs undisclosed medical condition increased his risk of back injury at issue holding when both expert testimony and circumstantial evidence of a physicians culpability are presented the inquiry is whether there was sufficient competent evidence from which the jury may have inferred a causal connection holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability