 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tatum v. Medical University of South Carolina8/20/2001
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Charleston County A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge
Heard June 8, 2000
REVERSED
This Court granted a writ of certiorari to review Tatum v. Medical University of South Carolina, 335 S.C. 499, 511, 517 S.E.2d 706, 713 (Ct. App. 1999), in which the Court of Appeals adopted the "dual persona doctrine" and held "where employer-hospital and its physicians negligently treat an employee for a work-related accident and, in doing so, exacerbate the injury ," a tort action may be maintained by the employee against the employer-hospital. We reverse.
FACTS
Respondent Tatum (Mrs. Tatum) injured her back in the course of her employment with Petitioner Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). She was treated at MUSC's Employee Health Care Service and diagnosed with a midline broadly-based disc herniation.
Mrs. Tatum was later referred to Dr. Sunil J. Patel, a physician employed by MUSC as an assistant professor and neurosurgeon. Ultimately, Dr. Patel performed three surgeries on Mrs. Tatum's back.
Mrs. Tatum filed a medical malpractice action against MUSC alleging she suffered permanent damage to her spinal cord as a result of Dr. Patel's negligence. Her husband, Respondent Scarbrough, asserted a claim for loss of consortium. MUSC denied the allegations in Mrs. Tatum's complaint and claimed Mrs. Tatum's exclusive remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Act.
Finding workers' compensation was Mrs. Tatum's exclusive remedy, the trial court granted MUSC's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. Mrs. Tatum appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed. It reasoned 1) an employee injured within the scope of employment may maintain a malpractice action against a negligent treating physician; 2) the South Carolina Tort Claims Act prohibits Mrs. Tatum from maintaining a malpractice action against Dr. Patel because he is MUSC's employee 3) the provisions of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act preclude her from maintaining a tort action against her employer MUSC; 4) nonetheless, pursuant to the "dual persona" doctrine, Mrs. Tatum may maintain a malpractice action against MUSC, not as her employer, but as a provider of hospital services. Tatum, 335 S.C. 499, 517 S.E.2d 706.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err by holding an employee of a governmental entity/hospital who sustains a compensable work-related injury may maintain a tort action against the governmental entity/hospital for the negligence of the treating physician?
DISCUSSION
This case asks us to resolve the conflict, if any, between the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (the Tort Claims Act) and the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act (the Worker's Compensation Act).
Under the Tort Claims Act, " he State, an agency, a political subdivision, and a governmental entity are liable for their torts in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, subject to the limitations upon liability and damages, and exemptions from liability and damages, contained [in the Act]." ยง 15-78-40. The Tort Claims Act does not create causes of action. Rather, it removes the common law bar of sovereign immunity in certain circumstances, but only to the extent permitted by the Act itself. Summers v. Harrison Constr., 298 S.C. 451, 381 S.E.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1989). The Tort Claims Act specifically provides: " he governmental entity is not liable for a loss resulting from any claim covered by the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act, except claims by or on behalf of an injured employ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|