In a medical malpractice case, a trial court commits prejudicial error by ruling in the presence of the jury that a defendant/psychiatrist is accepted by the court as an expert in his field.

The plaintiff sued Dr. Thompson for negligence and presented expert testimony that he had failed to conduct adequate diagnostic work, over prescribed medication for the deceased, failed to consult with other specialists, improperly combined the same class of medication, and failed to recognize that the deceased was in a drug-induced delirium.

At trial, the defense called Dr. Thompson to testify in his own defense. He was questioned before the jury regarding his education, experience and training. He was then presented to the court as a medical expert specializing in the field of psychiatry. The plaintiff objected but the court concluded that Dr. Thompson was an expert in his field.

The court of appeals held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in holding that defendant Thompson was an expert witness, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error in declaring Dr Thompson's expertise in the presence of the jury.

The issue of Dr. Thompson's expertise was not just one of fact, it held, but one of the most critical questions of fact to be decided by the jury. Dr. Thompson's competence level was a focal issue of the case. When the trial court stated to the jury, "I find that the witness is an expert in the field of general psychiatry," it was not just stating an opinion, but making a legal ruling.