Honest. Aggressive. Professional.
Published on:

pills rxIn a recent medical malpractice lawsuit, McMaster v. Dewitt and Carolina Psychiatric Services, SC Ct. App. (2014), the South Carolina Court of Appeals rendered a decision on the common issue of whether the statute of limitations had run or not, thus precluding the claim.

In the case, the plaintiff was treated by a physician for Adult Attention Deficit Disorder, for which he was prescribed Adderall. Sometime thereafter, the plaintiff was involuntarily committed to a hospital “in a delusional and paranoid state.” Following his discharge, the doctor stopped prescribing the medication to the plaintiff. Roughly a month later, the plaintiff was again admitted to the hospital, for the same reason. Some three years later, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the doctor, and his practice, alleging that he negligently overprescribed him Adderall, which led to his psychosis and subsequent hospitalization. His complaint only mentioned the second hospitalization incident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

http://www.legendswebdesign.comThe Supreme Court of Carolina reached a decision in a real estate case, Woodson v. DLI Properties, LLC, 406 S.C. 517 (2014), which according to the plaintiffs’ allegations, dealt with a potentially common scenario. This was one in which an offer was purportedly accepted and then due to a certain circumstance was not actually finalized, allowing for another offer to crop up and be accepted.

According to the facts set forth in the case, the petitioners (those who were attempting to make an offer on the property) had several back and forth exchanges with DLI (respondents) regarding the various terms of the offer. Towards the end, the petitioners contacted the agent of the respondents to let them know that they had a certain financial limit on the tap fee for the water/sewer system, and that was a contingent term of the deal.

Shortly thereafter, DLI received a separate, new offer, which was for cash and with an earlier closing date. A few days later, DLI accepted the second offer and informed the petitioners that they had.

Continue reading →

Published on:

files2The South Carolina Appeals Court reached a decision in the case of South Carolina Second Injury Fund v. American Home Assurance Co., SC Ct. App. (2014), regarding a workers’ compensation determination.

Since the opinion was not an officially published one, there are some key facts missing from the opinion. Therefore, this blog post assumes that there was an employee who was injured in a work context, since it arises out of a workers’ compensation claim appeal.

The circuit court affirmed the commission’s order that granted the carrier reimbursement, subsequent to the requirements under South Carolina law.

Continue reading →

Published on:

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAIn a recent South Carolina workers’ compensation case, the court of appeals in Beckman v. Sysco Columbia, LLC, et al., SC Ct. App. (2015), ruled on the issue of how back injuries can affect other parts of the body, and how this affects a workers’ compensation determination.

In the case, while loading a hand truck for his employer, the employee pulled muscles in his back, which caused him to injure his back, and he claimed his legs, buttocks, and foot were also harmed.

The employer admitted to the back injury but denied the other injuries the employee claimed. Following an independent medical examination, the employer sought to terminate temporary compensation and instituted an action for permanent disability compensation, based on the findings of the medical examiner that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

car doorThe South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case, Riley v. Ford Motor Company, S.C Ct. App. (2014), which arose out of a car accident in which the decedent’s 1998 Ford F-150 truck was struck from the side, causing him to be ejected from the vehicle, and ultimately killing him.

The decedent’s estate settled with the driver whom was at fault prior to trial, and at trial the jury awarded the estate $300,000 against Ford. Ford then filed for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court denied. The trial court also granted the estate’s motion for new trial nisi additur, and thereafter increased the amount to $900,000.

On appeal, Ford raised three arguments regarding why it believed the trial court’s denial of the JNOV motion was unfounded. It challenged the estate’s purported lack of sufficient evidence regarding the door latch; it argued that the estate did not prove the existence of a reasonable alternative design; and it claimed that the estate did not present sufficient expert testimony to prove that there was a reasonable alternative design or design flaw.

Continue reading →

Published on:

factoryIn a recent business contract dispute lawsuit, Digital Ally, Inc. v. Light-N-Up, LLC, SC Ct. App. (2014), the South Carolina Court of Appeals had to decide whether or not to enforce a default judgment that was entered in Missouri.

The case arose out of a business dispute between two companies: Digital Ally, a Nevada corporation, with principal offices in Kansas, but also registered to do business in Missouri, where its manufacturing facility is located; and Light-N-Up, a South Carolina limited liability corporation.

Digital Ally  alleged that Light-N-Up failed to pay $67,523.72 that it owed to Digital Ally for various items it had contracted to provide.

Continue reading →

Published on:

signing agreementThe South Carolina Supreme Court recently reached a pivotal decision in insurance law and personal injury/car accident cases that will undoubtedly result in a ripple effect across the industry.

In the case, Williams v. GEICO, 762 SE 2d (2014), a husband and wife who had purchased a car insurance policy from GEICO were killed in a car accident when the car that they were traveling in was hit by a train. While both of them were covered under the policy, it was unclear who was driving at the time of the accident.

The policy limits for bodily injury were $100,000/$300,000, but the policy contained an exclusion which “stepped down” coverage to family members of insureds to the state statutorily mandated amount of $15,000.

Continue reading →

Published on:

keysThe Spartanburg Police Department has been warning South Carolina residents of a possible scam involving a man posing as a real estate agent.

In this case, a man has been meeting with potential renters at a property, showing the home to them, and having them sign a fake lease and pay a deposit of the several hundreds of dollars. Only after doing so, have several individuals then found out that the property which they had financially committed to was not even available.

Once the police made the announcement, several individuals came forward. However, police are not certain whether there is one individual completing all of the transactions, of if there are unrelated operations following a similar pattern. A warrant has been issued for one individual in connection with the case, and police are warning South Carolina residents to contact them if they suspect a scam is taking place, or to report if they have been a victim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

railroad crossingThe Court of Appeals of South Carolina reached a decision in Moorer v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., SC Ct. App. (2014), on several points of law arising out of an employee’s allegations relating to his employer’s purported negligence in allowing him to work following a heat-related health incident, and in failing to administer prompt aid following the same incident. This was seemingly a workers’ compensation case, but it was not mentioned as such, and there was insufficient factual information to make a conclusive determination.

Firstly, the court of appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in failing to grant the employer’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding the plaintiff’s claim for negligent assignment, since the relevant standard for reaching such a decision is whether the evidence justifies that the employer’s negligence played any part, even a scintilla, in causing the injury or death for which the damages are being sought.

Continue reading →

Published on:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAA recent South Carolina Court of Appeals case focused on the proximate cause requirement of medical malpractice cases.

The case, Murphy v. Palmetto Lowcountry Behavioral Health, LLC, S.C. Ct. App. (2014), was an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the trial court.

Since the opinion was not officially published, for referential purposes, it does not include a complete factual background. However, what is clear from the discussion is that the plaintiff, Tasha Murphy, was admitted to a hospital and at some point developed lithium toxicity, which presumably resulted in some sort of injury or other damages. She then filed a lawsuit against her doctor, alleging medical malpractice.

Continue reading →