 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ROOF v. KIMBROUGH11/28/1988
Heard Oct. 19, 1988.
Decided Nov. 28, 1988.
Appellants, Martin L. Roof, Sr. and Ann P. Roof, sued respondents, Edward E. Kimbrough and the Moore Clinic, P.A., for damages arising from surgery performed on Mr. Roof. From a jury verdict in favor of respondents, the Roofs appeal. We affirm.
This case involves two consolidated
The Roofs first contend the trial judge erred in failing to strike for cause particular jurors. By written, pretrial motion, the Roofs moved to strike for cause any prospective juror who was being or had been treated, or whose family members were treated by the respondents. During voir dire, several members of the venire stated either they themselves or a close relative had been treated by the respondents. Upon questioning by the trial judge, each responded the connection with the respondents would not prejudice him or her and he or she would be able to render a true and just verdict in the case. Three of these jurors were drawn for this case. The Roofs struck two and the respondents struck one. The Roofs now argue the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to exclude these veniremen. We disagree.
In the case of Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S.C. 122, 341 S.E.2d 622 (1986), our Supreme Court held that although a juror should be disqualified by the court if it
The Roofs also assert error in the trial judge's refusal to allow the Roofs to impeach Dr. Kimbrough as an expert witness by use of a medical treatise. The Roofs' counsel called Dr. Kimbrough as a witness and questioned him at length regarding the technique he used in Mr. Roof's surgery. Counsel asked Dr. Kimbrough if he were negligent in cutting the dura in Mr. Roof's spine. Dr. Kimbrough responded, first, he did not cut the dura and, secondly, cutting the dura was not a "breach of trust and standards." Counsel then attempted to impeach Dr. Kimbrough with a medical treatise called Standard of Orthopaedic Operations, by Dr. John Crawford Adams. Following an objection from Dr. Kimbrough's counsel, the trial judge ruled the treatise could not be read to the jury.
Limited use of medical textbooks for the purpose of impeaching an expert witness was approved in the case of Baker v. Port City Steel Erectors, Inc., 261 S.C. 469, 200 S.E.2d 681 (1973). However, in Baker the court noted it is a violation of the hearsay rule to use scientific treatises in the cross-examination of an expert witness, where the effect is to permit the jury to consider the treatise as direct proof of an issue in the case. Id. 200 S.E.2d at 682. From the offer of proof presented by counsel, we find the excerpt from the medical treatise would have amounted to direct proof of Dr. Kimbrough's negligence had he cut the dura. We therefore affirm the trial judge's denial of the use of the medical treatise.
The Roofs next contend the trial judge erred in striking allegations in the complaint that Kimbrough was negligent and careless in treating Roof with intrathecal injections of steroids for a period of time prior to
It is undisputed Roof suffered injuries resulting from the surgical procedure. He never maintained the nerve damage resulted from the intrathecal injections, but alleged it was the result of a mistake made during surgery. He did not sue on the basis of an unnecessary operation. His whole theory was that he was injured by Dr. Kimbrough's negligence in surgery.
Proximate cause is the efficient or direct cause of an injury. Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 279 S.C. 458, 309 S.E.2d 295 (Ct. App. 1983). We hold under the facts of this case the intrathecal injections were not the proximate cause of the damaged nerves and the trial judge w
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.
|
|