FACTS




On October 3, 1988, Michael Anthony Ellis was severely injured in a one car accident. The paramedics who arrived at the scene of the accident administered first aid and immobilized Ellis by placing him in a cervical collar and securing him to a rigid board. The paramedics then transported Ellis to Richland Memorial Hospital's trauma center. The initial examination at the hospital revealed Ellis had suffered, among other things, closed head trauma, a fractured scapula, a torn right brachial plexus, and a cervical spine injury. Although Ellis could no longer move his right arm because of the torn brachial plexus, Ellis had some voluntary movement of the left arm, pain reflexes in his legs, and rectal tone, an indication he was not paralyzed below the waist.




Because of Ellis' closed head injury, the chief surgical resident Dr. William Moore called for an anesthesiologist to establish an airway in order to reduce the swelling of Ellis' brain by means of hyperventilation. Dr. David L. Oliver (Appellant) responded and was informed of Ellis' condition by Dr. Moore.


Thereafter, appellant made five attempts to establish an airway by inserting a tube through Ellis' nasal passage. When these attempts failed, appellant made five unsuccessful attempts at oral intubation using a laryngoscope, an instrument placed into the patient's mouth to visualize the trachea so that a tube can be passed into the windpipe. Following these attempts by appellant and one further unsuccessful attempt by Dr. Moore, Dr. Moore established a surgical airway by making an incision in Ellis' neck and windpipe and inserting a tube directly into Ellis' trachea. The following day, it was discovered that Ellis had suffered a spinal cord injury rendering him a quadriplegic.




In 1990, Ellis brought this medical malpractice action against appellant. Shortly thereafter, Ellis died from a blood infection allegedly related to his quadriplegia. Consequently, Deborah Scott Ellis (Respondent) was substituted as plaintiff and amended the complaint to allege survival and wrongful death causes of action. At the conclusion of a trial held in 1994, a jury returned a verdict in favor of respondent.




ISSUES




  (1) Did respondent present sufficient evidence to
      establish the requisite causal connection between
      appellant's acts and Michael Ellis' injuries?



  (2) Did the trial court err in admitting into
      evidence an ambulance run report and certain
      medical records under the business records
      exception to the hearsay rule?



  (3) Did the trial court err in allowing respondent's
      experts to give opinions based in part on hearsay
      statements and deposition testimony taken in
      other proceedings?


  (4) Did the trial court err in allowing certain
      testimony concerning the applicable standard
      of care?



  (5) Did the trial court err in excluding evidence of
      Ellis' pre-existing medical conditions and in
      admitting certain medical bills?



DISCUSSION




(1) Proximate Cause




Appellant first argues the trial court erred in not granting a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the requisite causal connection between appellant's acts and Ellis' injuries. Specifically, appellant argues respondent's experts failed to present sufficient evidence that Ellis' injuries "most probably" resulted from the alleged negligence of appellant. We disagree.




In a 


In this case, respondent's first expert, Dr. Morris Pulliam, test

Page 1 2 3 4 5 
South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
						  
						Personal Injury Lawyers