With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that under michigan law evidence of other products to which the plaintiff may have been exposed is relevant to rebut the plaintiffs claim
B: 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
C: holding exhaustion was not required where the plan failed to notify the plaintiff regarding the availability of a contractual remedy
D: 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
B.