 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shadwell v. Craigie11/1/2004
stituted more than six years from the date of occurrence, in this case, the date of Adam's birth").
In the present case, the occurrence happened when Dr. Craigie failed to inform Shadwell about the elevated creatinine levels discovered in her January 1996 test results. Dr. Craigie knew about the results before the January 26, 1996 colonoscopy. Dr. Craigie should have informed Shadwell within a reasonable time after learning the results, either at the time of the colonoscopy, or at the latest, at her follow-up appointment on February 9, 1996. Since he failed to do so, we agree with the trial court that the occurrence in this case is no later than the date of Shadwell's last appointment, February 9, 1996. Accordingly, the six-year statute of repose for Shadwell's cause of action against Dr. Craigie for his failure to inform her of the test results expired prior to the March 4, 2002 filing of the action against Dr. Craigie, regardless of when Shadwell discovered his omission.
II.
Shadwell also argues the trial court erred in not specifically addressing her "second cause of action" of Dr. Craigie's failure to inform Dr. Ziff, her treating physician, of the 1996 test results.
As noted, among other allegations, Shadwell averred in her complaint that Dr. Craigie committed two acts of negligence: (1) failing to inform her of the test results, and (2) failing to forward a copy of the results to Dr. Ziff as her referring physician. On appeal, Shadwell argues her second allegation of negligence constitutes a separate cause of action. She, therefore, argues the evidence shows she could not have been aware that Dr. Craigie failed to inform Dr. Ziff of the test results until Dr. Ziff testified to as much in his deposition on October 17, 2001. Accordingly, since she filed her complaint in March 2002, the statute of limitations would not act as a bar to this cause of action.
To support her contention that Dr. Craigie's failure to inform her treating physician of the test results constitutes a separate cause of action, Shadwell relies on this court's decision in Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 440 S.E.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1993). In Jernigan, a physician admitted the plaintiff to a hospital after plaintiff complained of severe headaches. Id. at 332, 440 S.E.2d at 380. While covering for plaintiffs' admitting physician, another doctor was called to answer an emergency code from plaintiff's room. After resuscitating plaintiff, this physician ordered a number of tests be performed including a CT scan. Thereafter, the admitting physician resumed care for plaintiff. Id.
Neither physician reviewed the results of the CT scan, which revealed plaintiff was suffering from intracranial hemorrhaging. Id. Four days later, while again covering for plaintiff's admitting physician, the same doctor who ordered the first CT scan ordered a second. Upon receiving and reviewing the results, the doctor performed immediate surgery to remedy the problem. Id. at 332-33, 440 S.E.2d at 380. Thus, the essence of plaintiff's claim was that the delay in treatment caused permanent brain damage. Id. at 333, 440 S.E.2d at 380.
Specifically, the plaintiff averred that once the physician ordered the CT scan the first time, he had an obligation to review the results, or at the very least, to see that another physician did. Id. Although this Court eventually found against the plaintiff, in reaching this conclusion, we stated: " e assume, without deciding,[plaintiff] is correct that once[the operating physician] ordered a CT scan on August 3, he was under a duty to see to it that the scan was performed and to see the results, or to see to it that someone else evaluated the results." Id.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|