 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prince v. Beaufort Memorial Hospital11/30/2005
Heard October 12, 2005
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Danny Prince appeals the trial court's denial of several motions in conjunction with his medical malpractice case against Beaufort Memorial Hospital. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Beaufort Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) admitted Prince on February 13, 1999, with job related injuries. From that day until the night of February 17, Prince was a compliant patient who exhibited no signs of abnormal or psychotic behavior. Sometime after 10:30 p.m. on February 17, Prince apparently experienced a psychotic hallucination in his hospital room.
At 11:20 p.m., Hospital staff found Prince on the roof of the second floor with injuries to his ankles and head resulting from an apparent fall or jump from his fourth floor room. Although Prince does not remember anything from the incident, including how he got out of his room or onto the roof, the window in his room showed signs of being forced open.
Pat Foulger is the Hospital's Vice President and holds positions on many Hospital committees including the P.I. or Quality Assurance Committee (hereafter the "Quality Assurance Committee"). The Quality Assurance Committee investigated the incident involving Prince. Counsel for Prince requested a copy of the file created during the investigation. The Hospital answered by providing a summary of expected witness testimony, but refused to turn over the file claiming it was protected under South Carolina Code Sections 40-71-10 & 20 (2001 & Supp. 2004). The circuit court denied Prince's motions to compel discovery of the complete file. Following trial the jury returned a defense verdict. Thereafter, Prince filed timely motions requesting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial, which were denied.
ISSUES
I. Was the trial court correct in ruling the Hospital's Quality Assurance Committee file was confidential and thus, not subject to discovery under Section 40-71-10 & 20?
II. Was the trial court correct in declining to entertain an in camera review of the alleged confidential committee file?
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Confidentiality
The Hospital claims that Sections 40-71-10 & 40-71-20 of the South Carolina Code protect the file in dispute. Prince argues that the file was not protected because the Quality Assurance Committee did not meet the conditions of confidentiality as set out in Section 40-71-10. Section 40-71-10 (a) states:
"Professional society" as used in this chapter includes legal, medical, osteopathic, optometric, chiropractic, psychological, dental, accounting, pharmaceutic, and engineering organizations having as members at least a majority of the eligible licentiates in the area served by the particular society and any foundations composed of members of these societies. It also includes the South Carolina Law Enforcement Accreditation Council.
Further, Section 40-71-10 (b) provides immunity for:
an appointed member of a committee of a medical staff or a licensed hospital, provided the medical staff operates pursuant to written bylaws that have been approved by the governing board of the hospital . . . for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions of the committee.
In this case the record shows that the Quality Assurance Committee operates pursuant to bylaws. Prince argues no evidence was presented to show that a majority of the Committee members were licentiates. However, Ms. Foulger's deposition testimony states that the Quality Assurance Committee has three medical staff members and thre
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.
|
|