Hoffman v. Powell, No. 23027
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | CHANDLER; GREGORY |
| Citation | 380 S.E.2d 821,298 S.C. 338 |
| Parties | , 58 USLW 2027 Melinda HOFFMAN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David M. Hoffman, Appellants, v. Jerry POWELL, M.D. and The Surgical Clinic of Anderson, P.A., Respondents. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23027 |
Page 821
of the Estate of David M. Hoffman, Appellants,
v.
Jerry POWELL, M.D. and The Surgical Clinic of Anderson,
P.A., Respondents.
Decided June 5, 1989.
[298 S.C. 339] Barney O. Smith, Jr. of Parham and Smith, Greenville, for appellants.
G. Dewey Oxner, Jr. and F. Matlock Elliott of Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for respondents.
Thomas H. Hart and Desa A. Ballard, Barnwell, for amicus curiae: Citizens Opposed to the Limitations of Legal Rights (COLLAR).
CHANDLER, Justice:
The Circuit Court held that these medical malpractice actions are barred by the six-year "repose" provision of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-3-545 (Supp.1988). 1 Appellants challenge the constitutionality of this provision. We affirm.
Section 15-3-545 provides in pertinent part:
Any action to recover damages for injury to the person arising out of any medical, surgical or dental treatment, omission or operation by any licensed health care provider ... shall be commenced within three years from the date of the treatment, omission or operation giving rise to the cause of action or three years from date of discovery or when it reasonably ought to have been discovered, not to exceed six years from date of occurrence.
[Emphasis supplied].
The statute establishes a three-year limitations period running from the date the malpractice is discovered or reasonably ought to be discovered. This "discovery rule" is subject to a six-year period running from the date of occurrence. The six-year period, commonly referred to as a "statute of repose," constitutes an outer limit beyond which a [298 S.C. 340] medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered.
Appellants concede that, if constitutional, the six-year limitation bars their actions-
Page 822
; they challenge its validity on equal protection and due process grounds. 2The only issue before us is whether the six-year repose provision of § 15-3-545 violates equal protection and due process guarantees.
In Smith v. Smith, 291 S.C. 420, 354 S.E.2d 36 (1987), this Court rejected an equal protection challenge to the three-year limitations provision of § 15-3-545. We held there is a reasonable basis to protect the class of health care providers, and a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.
Appellants contend the statute's six-year provision denies equal protection to plaintiffs whose injuries cannot be discovered within six years. We disagree.
The statute of repose applies in the same manner to medical malpractice plaintiffs, whether their injuries are latent or readily apparent. Moreover, as with the three-year period in Smith, it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative objective:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffner v. Johnson, No. 20020208.
...559 N.W.2d 348, 353 (1996); Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs. of New Mexico, P.C., 121 N.M. 821, 918 P.2d 1321, 1331-33 (1996); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1989); Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990). But see DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wash......
-
I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, No. 25048.
...appellate review. E.g., Pelican Bldg. Centers of Horry-Georgetown, Inc. v. Dutton, 311 S.C. 56, 427 S.E.2d 673 (1993); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821 (1989); see also Rules 52(b) and 59(e), Imposing this preservation requirement on the appellant is meant to enable the lower......
-
Perez-Perez v. Ray, C/A No. 9:16-3574-CMC-BM
...beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered."; Hoffman v. Powell, 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (S.C. 1989); and for purposes of this statute, "occurrence" means the time of anPage 11 alleged negligent treatment, omission, or operati......
-
Ravan v. Greenville County, No. 2052
...jury arrived at its verdicts was raised for the first time on appeal and provides no basis for reversing the verdicts. Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 340 n. 2, 380 S.E.2d 821, 822 n. 2 (1989). We dismiss this ground for appeal because it is without The landowners excepted to the trial cou......
-
Hoffner v. Johnson, No. 20020208.
...559 N.W.2d 348, 353 (1996); Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs. of New Mexico, P.C., 121 N.M. 821, 918 P.2d 1321, 1331-33 (1996); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1989); Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990). But see DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wash......
-
I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, No. 25048.
...appellate review. E.g., Pelican Bldg. Centers of Horry-Georgetown, Inc. v. Dutton, 311 S.C. 56, 427 S.E.2d 673 (1993); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821 (1989); see also Rules 52(b) and 59(e), Imposing this preservation requirement on the appellant is meant to enable the lower......
-
Perez-Perez v. Ray, C/A No. 9:16-3574-CMC-BM
...beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered."; Hoffman v. Powell, 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (S.C. 1989); and for purposes of this statute, "occurrence" means the time of anPage 11 alleged negligent treatment, omission, or operati......
-
Ravan v. Greenville County, No. 2052
...jury arrived at its verdicts was raised for the first time on appeal and provides no basis for reversing the verdicts. Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 340 n. 2, 380 S.E.2d 821, 822 n. 2 (1989). We dismiss this ground for appeal because it is without The landowners excepted to the trial cou......