 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JERNIGAN v. KING12/28/1993
Rodney C. Jernigan, as Guardian Ad Litem for Perry Pressley, sued physicians J. Stovall King and Kenneth S. Kammer, as well as McLeod Regional Medical Center (MRMC), for
Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, SCRCP; Baugus v. Wessinger, 303 S.C. 412, 401 S.E.2d 169 (1991). All ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the movant. Id. Viewed in this manner the record reveals the following facts.
King was the sole shareholder in Carolina Neurological Services, P.A. and had active staff privileges at MRMC. Kammer was King's employee.
On August 2, 1982, Perry complained of a severe headache and he was taken to his physician, Marion Fowler. Perry lost consciousness and was transported to the emergency room at MRMC. The attending physician, King, admitted Perry to MRMC at about 8:55 p.m. On August 3, 1982, at about 8:00 a.m., Kammer, while on call for King, responded to an emergency code from Perry's room and discovered Perry in arrest. Kammer resuscitated Perry, ordered Perry transferred to the intensive care unit, placed him on a respirator, ordered blood gas studies, ordered intravenous fluids to be administered, ordered checks on vital signs, and ordered an immediate CT scan. At about 8:25 or 8:30 a.m., King resumed responsibility for Perry's care.
Neither Kammer nor King reviewed the results of the CT scan. Those results indicated "intracranial hemorrhage, as well as intracranial pressure sufficient to cause brain compression as evidenced by a shift of intracranial contents to the right."
On August 6, 1982, Kammer saw Perry again while on call for King. Kammer ordered another CT scan and, upon receiving
Jernigan brought this action on Perry's behalf against King, Kammer and MRMC. After some discovery Kammer moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and Jernigan appeals.
At oral arguments, Jernigan's counsel stated that Jernigan was not claiming that by beginning treatment on Perry on August 3, 1982, Kammer was liable for Perry's care throughout Perry's illness. Rather, Jernigan's position was that once Kammer began a particular course of treatment during the emergency period when he was covering for King, he had an obligation to exercise due care in completing that particular treatment. Counsel stated that Kammer had an obligation to evaluate the CT scan or "to make sure someone else does - he has a responsibility to make sure that it is followed up." Counsel also stated that Kammer "ordered a CT scan and did absolutely nothing to make sure that anybody even bothered to look at it." Finally, counsel stated "the fact that [Kammer] undertook emergency services and ordered a CT scan and put this ball into motion by definition create a duty to make sure someone catches the ball on the other side."
We assume, without deciding, Jernigan is correct that once Kammer 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. We hold the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Kammer in this case.
In his affidavit, Kammer stated:
rior to the CT scan being performed on
Perry Pressley and after having [been]
informed by [Kammer] of what had transpired
and what had been done, J. Stovall King, M.D.,
resumed responsibility for the care of his
patient, Perry Pressley, this being
approximately 8:25 or 8:30 a.m. August 3,
1982.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|