Tom Arthur v. Samuel Bolen and Julie Bolen.

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the non‑licensed expert’s testimony was admissible because the amended engineering statute does not require a license for testimony unrelated to work performed under an Alabama engineering license, and that the jury instruction requiring reimbursement to Tricare was proper. The court based its decision on statutory construction and the trial court’s discretion in jury instructions.