 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. QHG of South Carolina1/24/2005
Heard November 30, 2004
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART
Respondent/petitioner (Grandfather) appealed the circuit court's decision granting petitioners/respondents' (the Doctors') motion to dismiss on the bases res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Grandfather from asserting the same arguments advanced in a previous suit against Dr. Thomas W. Phillips. The Court of Appeals reversed. Nelson v. QHG of South Carolina, Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 580 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 2003). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
In 1996, Latonia Nelson (Mother), as guardian ad litem for Ty'Guain S. Nelson, brought a medical malpractice action against Carolina Women's Center and Thomas W. Phillips, M.D. for injuries allegedly caused during the delivery of Ty'Guain. When Mother failed to identify any experts who would testify to a breach of the standard of care, the circuit court granted Dr. Phillips' motion for summary judgment. However, the circuit court granted Mother thirty days to file a motion to reconsider along with an affidavit from an expert establishing a breach of the standard of care. No motion to reconsider was filed.
James Nelson, Jr. (Grandfather) brought this medical malpractice action in 2001 against Dr. Phillips, his medical group (the Doctors), Carolina Hospital System, and Quorum Health Group, Inc. alleging negligence on the part of Dr. Phillips and the Doctors in the delivery of Ty'Guain. Grandfather consented to the dismissal of Dr. Phillips after being advised of the prior lawsuit. The Doctors then filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the circuit court.
ISSUES
Did the Court of Appeals err by finding the medical malpractice claim is barred and by finding the negligent record-keeping claim is not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata?
Did the Court of Appeals err by failing to hold the collateral estoppel doctrine inapplicable because the first court order was a consent order, prior counsel was inadequate, the Doctors could have joined in the prior case, and due to policy considerations?
DISCUSSION
I.
The Court of Appeals held Grandfather's action was properly dismissed against Dr. Phillips based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, the court held that Grandfather could maintain his claim against the Doctors for negligent medical record-keeping since that was an independent basis of liability separate from Dr. Phillips' liability. The Doctors contend this was error.
We find Grandfather is barred from bringing a negligent record-keeping claim against the Doctors because Dr. Phillips' negligence has previously been litigated and determined in the first action of Mother versus Dr. Phillips. See Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431, 351 S.E.2d 164 (1986) (under doctrine of collateral estoppel, once final judgment on the merits has been reached in prior claim, relitigation of those issues actually and necessarily litigated and determined in the first suit are precluded in any subsequent action based upon a different claim).
Grandfather's claims against the Doctors are collaterally estopped because there was a fair and full opportunity to litigate those claims in the earlier suit. Previously, the 1996 circuit court found that Mother had not produced an expert witness stating the standard of care and stating that Dr. Phillips had breached the standard of care and, therefore, Mother's action did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether medical malpractice had occurred. See Pederson v. Gould, 288 S.C. 141, 341 S.E.2d 633 (1986) (in medical malpractice actions, pl
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.
|
|