Gass v. Haines
| Decision Date | 10 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1372,1372 |
| Citation | 298 S.C. 549,381 S.E.2d 923 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mildred GASS, Appellant, v. Risley HAINES, M.D. and Baptist Medical Center, Respondents. . Heard |
H. Wayne Floyd, West Columbia, for appellant.
Jeter E. Rhodes and Heyward E. McDonald, Columbia, for respondents.
Mildred Gass sued Risley Haines, M.D. and Baptist Medical Center alleging medical malpractice. The judge directed verdicts for Haines and Baptist. Gass appeals the granting of the directed verdicts. We affirm.
On appeal from the granting of a directed verdict, the reviewing court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Haulbrooks v. Overton, 295 S.C. 380, 368 S.E.2d 676 (Ct.App.1988).
On November 8, 1984, Gass cut the heel of the palm of her right hand on a peanut butter jar. Later that same day, she was admitted to Baptist Medical Center for treatment of a drug overdose taken during an attempted suicide. When she regained consciousness, she complained about pain in her hand. After the hand became inflamed, the hospital made arrangements for Gass to visit her regular physician, Dr. Haines.
On November 14, 1984, Gass went to Haines's office. Haines removed a piece of glass from the heel of her hand and inserted a drain to treat the infection. Gass testified that Haines stated (1) he might have left some glass in the hand, (2) glass had a way of working itself out, and (3) she should come back in six months if she had any problems. After the operation, Gass returned to the hospital.
The next day, Haines removed the drain. Until her release from Baptist Medical Center on November 30, 1984, Gass continued to complain about pain in her hand. Gass testified that, within six months, she returned to Haines for another ailment and showed him the hand. At that visit, Haines did nothing to the hand.
Meanwhile, Gass returned to work and saw her company's doctor, Dr. Koon, about pain in her hand. In June 1985, Koon referred Gass to Dr. Kirkley, an orthopedic surgeon. Gass complained of swelling of the wrist and tingling and numbness in the fingers. In July 1985, Kirkley ordered an x-ray and C.A.T. scan of the wrist. The tests showed a foreign material in the wrist. Kirkley subsequently removed a piece of glass from Gass's wrist. This suit followed.
At trial, Dr. Kirkley testified about his care of Gass and his personal opinion of the use of x-rays in similar cases. He testified he was not familiar with the standard of care for general practitioners or orthopedic surgeons. Gass offered no expert testimony on the standard of care for nurses.
In a medical malpractice action the plaintiff must establish by expert testimony both the required standard of care and the defendant's failure to conform to that standard, unless the subject matter lies within the ambit of common knowledge or experience, so that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chalfant v. Carolinas Dermatology Grp.
... ... not matters within the ambit of common knowledge or ... experience"); Gass v. Haines , 298 S.C. 549, ... 551, 381 S.E.2d 923, 925 (Ct. App. 1989) (finding the ... treatment of glass puncture wounds was not in the ... ...
- Espinal v. Blackmon, 1368
-
Armstrong v. Union Carbide, 1806
...inhalation of ethylene glycol is not a matter within the common knowledge and experience of most individuals. Cf. Gass v. Haines, 298 S.C. 549, 381 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1989) (medical malpractice case). As the factfinder the Commission was required to assess and weigh the evidence. Ross, 298 ......
-
American Federal Bank, FSB v. Parker
...Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 389 S.E.2d 646, Opinion Number 23138 (S.C.Sup.Ct. filed January 22, 1990); Gass v. Haines, 298 S.C. 549, 381 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1989). Parker executed a promissory note in blank. Under the Uniform Commercial Code the maker of a note agrees to pay the in......