Bowie by Bowie v. Hearn, 22831

Decision Date11 December 1987
Docket NumberNo. 22831,22831
Citation294 S.C. 344,364 S.E.2d 469
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesChad BOWIE, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Pamela BOWIE, Petitioner, v. Henry B. HEARN, IV, Respondent. . Heard

J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., of the Law Offices of J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., Columbia, for petitioner.

Cary C. Doyle, of Doyle & O'Rourke, Anderson, and Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is a medical malpractice action. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 292 S.C. 223, 355 S.E.2d 550. The only issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner failed to present sufficient expert testimony to warrant submission of the case to the jury. We reverse.

Respondent delivered petitioner by caesarian section. Petitioner's cheek was cut during the surgery and a scar resulted.

Petitioner's expert testified that a caesarean section requires a series of incisions through various layers of the mother's abdomen. He stated that the proper procedure is to make a tiny initial incision in each layer and then lift the edges of that incision and make it larger and deeper. According to the testimony, use of this standard technique will not result in injury to the baby.

Respondent testified that when he reached the uterus, he made three or four "swipes" with a scalpel in order to incise the uterine wall. Petitioner's expert's testimony was evidence that respondent's action deviated from the recognized and generally accepted caesarean procedure. The trial judge properly submitted the issue of respondent's malpractice to the jury. Cox v. Lund, 286 S.C. 410, 334 S.E.2d 116 (1985). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fletcher v. Med. Univ. of South Carolina, 4732.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2010
    ...testimony showed the procedure for a cesarean was to make a series of progressively deepening incisions. Bowie v. Hearn, 294 S.C. 344, 345-46, 364 S.E.2d 469, 469-70 (1988) ( Bowie II ). No self-incriminating testimony from Dr. Brothers in this case suggests a deviation in the standard of c......
  • Fletcher v. Med. Univ. Of South Carolina
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2010
    ...testimony showed the procedure for a cesarean was to make a series of progressively deepening incisions. Bowie v. Hearn, 294 S.C. 344, 345-46, 364 S.E.2d 469, 469-70 (1988) (Bowie II). No self-incriminating testimony from Dr. Brothers in this case suggests a deviation in the standard of car......
  • Hurst by Hurst v. Dougherty
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 1990
    ...procedure was to make three or four "swipes" at the uterine wall, the issue of malpractice was for the jury. Bowie ex rel. Bowis v. Hearn, 294 S.C. 344, 364 S.E.2d 469 (1988). See generally, Annot. 76 A.L.R.4th 1112 Defendant's medical expert testified as to defendant's performance: He knew......
  • Dibernardo v. Carolina Cardiology Assocs.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 2019
    ...550, 552 (Ct. App. 1987) ("A doctor is not an insurer of health and negligence may not be inferred."), rev'd on other grounds, 294 S.C. 344, 364 S.E.2d 469 (1988); Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 555 n.7, 409 S.E.2d 797, 803 n.7 (Ct. App. 1991) ("South Carolina does not recognize th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT