 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'TUEL v. VILLANI2/13/1995
These are
Adam was born by vaginal delivery on August 27, 1983, after his mother was in labor for slightly less than twenty four hours. Shortly after his birth, Adam developed certain physical problems, including pyloric stenosis and a blocked tear duct. In addition, Adam later developed a narrow urinary tract opening which required surgery, and wore corrective shoes because of a hip problem. These problems were characterized by Dr. Villani's experts as congenital or developmental. An MRI scan of Adam's brain taken just before the summary judgment hearing also revealed that Adam has a brain abnormality known as a type one Chiari malformation.
At the summary judgment hearing, Dr. Villani presented the depositions of several experts who testified that Dr. Villani did not breach the standard of care by allowing Adam's mother to deliver vaginally rather than performing a caesarean section. Dr. Villani's experts further testified that while periods of reduced oxygen did occur, Adam did not suffer an hypoxic event or other birth trauma which caused any of Adam's injuries. The appellants presented the deposition of Dr. Floyd, an obstetrics expert, who stated that Dr. Villani breached the standard of care by failing to perform a caesarean section in light of evidence of a potential cephalic/pelvic disproportion, and that Adam suffered an hypoxic event during delivery. However, Dr.
Floyd did not testify as to the cause of Adam's learning disabilities. The appellants offered and affidavit from Dr. Onischenko, a clinical psychologist, to establish proximate cause.
I. Parents' Claim
Adam was born in 1983, and his learning disabilities were allegedly first discovered when he started school in 1990. The parents' suit was filed in June of 1992. The trial court granted Dr. Villani's motion for summary judgment, finding that the parents' claim was barred by the six year statute of repose in S.C. Code Ann. ยง 15-3-545 (Supp. 1993). Under this statute, an action for
The parents' interpretation of the statute would allow all claims to be brought within six years after discovery of the injury, effectively reading out the statute's three year time limit. The six year period constitutes an outer limit beyond which a
II. Adam's Claim
A. Competency of Expert Witness
Dr. Villani also moved for summary judgment in Adam's case, arguing that Adam's claim was likewise barred by the statute of limitations, and that he did not
On appeal, Adam contends Dr. Onischenko, an expert in learning disabilities and mental deficiencies, was competent to testify as to the proximate cause of Adam's injuries. Given the particular circumstances of this case, we agree. In a
The trial court, however, refused to accept Dr. Onischenko's affidavit to establish proximate cause, stating that " othing in the record establishes that Dr. Onischenko had the training or the experience to qualify him as an expert in obstetrics. His
According to his affidavit, Dr. Onischenko is "frequently called upon to make diagnoses of learning and other intellectual and psychological disabilities and to prescribe treatment. As an integral part of making such diagnoses and prescribing treatment, it is often required that an analysis of the cause of such problems be made and conclusions reached." Dr. Onischenko's affidavit therefore established that through his training, education, and experience, he was capable of drawing inferences about the cause of Adam's problems which could not be drawn by the jury or other laymen. We require no more than that of an expert witness. We do not require that an expert in a
Dr. Onischenko was not called upon to pas
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|