Hook v. Rothstein

CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
CitationHook v. Rothstein, 320 S.E.2d 35, 283 S.C. 64 (S.C. 1984)
Decision Date24 August 1984
PartiesJudith L. Summers HOOK, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jack R. Summers, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Jerry C. ROTHSTEIN, M.D., Respondent.
ORDER

This is a wrongful death action brought against a physician for negligently failing to inform his patient of the risks involved in a proposed medical procedure. The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for the physician, holding that the appropriate standard in an informed consent case is the "professional medical standard." Hook v. Rothstein, 316 S.E.2d 690 (S.C.App.1984).

Appellant petitions this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 55 for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • Cianbro Corp. v. Jeffcoat and Martin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • October 8, 1992
    ...P.2d 1092, 1094 (Colo.Ct.App. 1985); cf. Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690, 701 & n. 3 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984) (affirming medical malpractice jury instruction which stated that a doctor "does not guarantee or insure the correctness or safety ......
  • Harvey v. Strickland
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2002
    ...503 S.E.2d 717, 720 (1998). a. Implied Consent Citing Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct.App.), cert denied 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984), Dr. Strickland contends the subsequent unplanned emergency required he seek the consent of Harvey's mother for further treatments. ......
  • Johnston v. Ward
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1986
    ...absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984). Johnston made no such Circuit Court Rule 88, which, as of July 1, 1985, was repealed and replaced by Rule 34 of the new South Car......
  • Vacation Time of Hilton Head Island, Inc. v. Lighthouse Realty, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1985
    ...v. Cater, 241 S.C. 262, 127 S.E.2d 882 (1962); Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984); see also S.C.CIR.CT.R. Lighthouse as the defendant was not entitled to a charge on punitive damages since punitive damages were not ......
  • Get Started for Free
6 books & journal articles
  • A. Interference with Persons
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 6 Intentional Torts
    • Invalid date
    ...and accompanying text.[65] Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 558, 316 S.E.2d 690, 700-01 (Ct. App. 1984), cert. denied, 282 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984) (indication in denial of certiorari that case was "correctly decided"). The opinion in Hook contains extensive discussion of the doctrine ......
  • B. Causation
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 2 Negligence and Similar Breaches of Duty
    • Invalid date
    ...S.C. CODE ANN. § 44-137-10(4)(a-g).[636] See, e.g., Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 600 (Ct. App. 1984) (1984), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984) (S.C. Supreme Court stating that it believed "the case was correctly decided"); Fletcher v. Med. Univ. of S.C., 390 S.C......
  • 29 Medical Malpractice
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) (2015 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case.[32] Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1984), cert. den., 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984). In denying certiorari the Supreme Court said the appropriate informed consent standard is the professional medical standard. ......
  • C. Proof
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 2 Negligence and Similar Breaches of Duty
    • Invalid date
    ...S.C. 251, 317 S.E.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1984); Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1984), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 320, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984) (standard for informed consent); Spires v. Acceleration Nat'l Ins. Co., 417 F. Supp. 2d 750 (D.S.C. 2006). Causation cases. Peterson v.......
  • Get Started for Free