Honest. Aggressive. Professional.
Published on:

firefighters-1099588-mA wrongful death lawsuit was recently filed in the matter of an incident that occurred last year, when a North Charleston firetruck reportedly fatally struck a bicyclist.

The daughter of the individual killed in the accident filed suit, claiming that the firefighter was driving recklessly, and at too high a speed considering the conditions.

The accident report written by the state trooper who responded to the scene allegedly claimed that the bicyclist was at fault for traveling within the paved median at the time of the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

apartment-1226024-mIn a recent South Carolina Court of Appeals case, Armstrong v. Thompson, SC Ct. App (2015), the court apparently had before it an appeal stemming from a summary judgment motion in a landlord-tenant premises liability case.

The facts in the opinion were sparse, since the court of appeals decided to affirm the summary judgment award. Summary judgment is granted when there is no issue of material fact on which the non-moving party can prevail. In this case, based upon what the court said, we can infer that there was some issue with the fact that the purported danger that apparently injured the plaintiff was within the plaintiff’s care as a tenant, and therefore liability did not attach to the landlord for a failure to maintain the relevant premises in a safe manner.

Continue reading →

Published on:

door-28-9316-mIn a recent premises liability case, Lynch v. Carolina Self Storage Centers, Inc., 760 SE 2d 111 (2014), the South Carolina Court of Appeals had to decide on the issue of several appeals following a trial and jury verdict.

The plaintiff in the case brought a premises liability lawsuit against the storage facility after a metal door closed onto her heel, causing a deep wound, which eventually led to her Achilles tendon rupturing and later becoming infected, which necessitated several surgeries and extensive medical expenses. The lawsuit alleged that the storage facility was negligent in failing to maintain the door in a reasonably safe condition or warn of its dangerous condition. The storage facility argued that the extent of her injuries was not due to negligence on its part, but instead the plaintiff’s failure to follow her physician’s orders to stay off of the injured foot and keep her cast dry.

Continue reading →

Published on:

mercury-in-glass-thermometer-902880-mIn a recent medical malpractice case, Fay v. Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC, SC Ct. App. (2015), the South Carolina Court of Appeals evaluated the cross motions of two doctors who were named as defendants, and that of the plaintiff in the case.

In the case, the patient was admitted to the emergency room, complaining of abdominal pain. She suspected it was a kidney stone because she had suffered from them before. Scans revealed it was in fact a kidney stone. The emergency room physician instructed her to make an appointment with another doctor for the following Monday and discharged her on the instructions that if she developed a fever, nausea, or vomiting, she contact the emergency room or come back for further treatment. Over the weekend, the plaintiff alternated between periods of feeling worse or somewhat better, so even though she had a low grade fever, she stayed home. Then, after her husband left for work, but prior to her appointment with the second doctor, the husband returned home to find the patient unresponsive. An ambulance was called, and the patient ultimately died once at the hospital. The husband sued, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff (husband).

Continue reading →

Published on:

blueprintIn a recent construction defect decision, Vernon v. Landmarc Constructors, Inc., SC Ct. App. (2014), although the actual opinion itself was sparse, in reviewing the relevant standards for the dispute involving a contract, the South Carolina Court of Appeals gives a brief overview of the elements necessary to succeed in cases involving several different types of legal challenges.

According to the opinion, the plaintiffs sued the defendants, including a construction company, on various claims. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed on the basis of findings regarding conversion, breach of contract with fraudulent intent, fraud, and one defendant’s personal liability.

Regarding the relevant standard of review, the court stated that in cases tried without juries, the judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are not reasonably supported by the evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

sterilisation-1385734-mIn another recent case regarding the procedural requirements in medical malpractice lawsuits, the Supreme Court of South Carolina refused to throw out a case on the basis of a failure to file a contemporaneous expert witness statement with a notice of intent to sue.

In the case, Wilkinson v. East Cooper Community Hospital, 410 S.C. 163 (2014), the plaintiff Wilkinson underwent reconstructive breast surgery, after which she suffered various complications.

She then filed her statutorily required Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a medical malpractice claim, but she stated that, since the statute of limitations was set to run out, she needed additional time to file the required expert witness affidavit. South Carolina law requires that an expert witness affidavit, supporting the potential medical malpractice claims, be filed contemporaneously with the NOI. She later filed a statement from a board certified plastic surgeon.

Continue reading →

Published on:

chest-xray-262068-mIn a recent Supreme Court of South Carolina medical malpractice case, Ranucci v. Crain, SC Sup. Ct. (2014), the court had before it the specific issue of how the various code sections regarding professional malpractice claims and those that apply only to medical malpractice claims interact with one another.

In the case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant doctor performed a needle core breast biopsy on her, and that following the procedure, the plaintiff experienced pain during breathing. Three days later, according to the allegations, the plaintiff had an X-ray performed, which revealed that she had suffered a collapsed lung.

The plaintiff subsequently filed her notice of intent (NOI) to sue, as required under South Carolina law, citing the alleged negligent execution of the biopsy. The plaintiff’s NOI stated that due to “time constraints,” she was unable to file the required contemporaneous affidavit from a medical expert regarding her allegations, but that it would be filed within the next 45 days, as set forth in a specific code section, or that it would not require an affidavit. The plaintiff then filed the required expert affidavit within the relevant time period.

Continue reading →

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 →