Turbeville v. Wilson9/12/2005
that Dr. Wilson was responsible for the negligence of Dr. Stewart. The court ruled "the sole issue for trial will be whether or not Dr. Wilson deviated from any standards of medical practice in removing the NG-Tube from the decedent on July 18, 1997, and whether this removal proximately caused injury, damage, and/or death to the decedent." Turbeville then filed a motion for reconsideration. Before the trial court could rule on that motion, Turbeville filed this appeal. Based on a lack of jurisdiction given the pending appeal, the trial court declined to hear the motion for reconsideration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, the appellate court applies the same standard which governs the trial court under Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493-94, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences, which can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Faile v. South Carolina Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 350 S.C. 315, 324, 566 S.E.2d 536, 540 (2002). "If triable issues exist, those issues must go to the jury." Young v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., 333 S.C. 714, 718, 511 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 1999).
Summary judgment is not appropriate when further inquiry into the facts is necessary to clarify the application of the law. Vermeer Carolina's, Inc. v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 336 S.C. 53, 59, 518 S.E.2d 301, 305 (Ct. App. 1999). All ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the moving party. Bayle v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 120, 542 S.E.2d 736, 738 (Ct. App. 2001). When the parties do not dispute the facts, but only the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from them, summary judgment should be denied. Hall v. Fedor, 349 S.C. 169, 173-74, 561 S.E.2d 654, 656 (Ct. App. 2002). Moreover, summary judgment is a drastic remedy, which should be cautiously invoked so no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of the disputed factual issues. Lanham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 349 S.C. 356, 363, 563 S.E.2d 331, 334 (2002).
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Dr. Turner
Turbeville claims the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Turner because expert testimony or, at least, common knowledge, presented a reasonable inference that Dr. Turner's negligence proximately caused the death of the deceased. We disagree.
A. Expert Testimony
Medical malpractice is the failure of a physician to exercise that degree of care and skill that is ordinarily employed by the profession under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances. Keaton v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 334 S.C. 488, 496, 514 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1999); Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 333, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct. App. 1993). To sustain a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish by expert testimony both the required standard of care and the defendant's failure to conform to that standard. Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 583, 320 S.E.2d 59, 62 (Ct. App. 1984). The reason for requiring expert testimony is that matters of proper medical diagnosis and treatment ordinarily involve "'technical knowledge beyond the ken of the laymen.'" Bessinger v. DeLoach, 230 S.C. 1, 11, 94 S.E.2d 3, 8 (1956) (quoting Hill v. Parker, 122 P.2d 476, 482 (Wash. 1942)). Expert testimony is not required in medical malpractice cases in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|