 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JERNIGAN v. KING12/28/1993
>
(emphasis ours). In his brief, Jernigan stated:
Kammer abandoned Perry's care when King
appeared at the hospital at approximately 8:25
or 8:30 a.m. on August 3, 1982, after Kammer
had stabilized Perry and Perry had been
transported to the radiology department for
the CT scan . . . . Having found Perry near
death and having ordered vital signs and
neurological checks every hour and an
immediate CT scan, among other actions to
stabilize Perry, Kammer then abruptly
abandoned any further care for Perry, even a
review of the CT scan that he had ordered
"immediately." He simply told King what had
happened and walked away.
Hence, according to the only evidence in the record as well as a description in Jernigan's brief of what happened, Kammer discharged the very duty Jernigan claims he breached. That is, although Kammer did not read the results of the CT scan
Because of our disposition of this case we need not address Jernigan's remaining arguments. See Whiteside v. Cherokee County School District No. One, ___ S.C. ___, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (the Supreme Court declined to address issues raised on appeal in view of its affirmance based upon an independent dispositive issue on appeal); Daniels v. City of Goose Creek, ___ S.C. ___, 431 S.E.2d 256 (Ct.App. 1993) (where reversal on an issue would not change the result, the issue is moot, and the Court of Appeals need not reach it).
Affirmed.
CURETON and GOOLSBY, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|