Jernigan v. King, No. 2112
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BRUCE LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 440 S.E.2d 379,312 S.C. 331 |
| Parties | Rodney C. JERNIGAN, Jr., as Guardian Ad Litem for Perry Pressley, Appellant, v. J. Stovall KING, M.D., Kenneth S. Kammer, M.D., and McLeod Regional Medical Center, Defendants, of whom Kenneth S. Kammer, M.D., is Respondent. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 2112 |
Page 379
Pressley, Appellant,
v.
J. Stovall KING, M.D., Kenneth S. Kammer, M.D., and McLeod
Regional Medical Center, Defendants,
of whom Kenneth S. Kammer, M.D., is Respondent.
Decided Dec. 28, 1993.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1994.
Certiorari Denied Aug. 11, 1994
Page 380
[312 S.C. 331] Desa A. Ballard and L. Joel Chastain, of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Barnwell; and Thomas D. Rogers, of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Charleston, for appellant.
Ernest J. Nauful, Jr., and Andrew F. Lindemann, both of Nauful & Ellis, Columbia, for respondent.
BRUCE [312 S.C. 332] LITTLEJOHN, Acting Associate Judge.
Rodney C. Jernigan, as Guardian ad Litem for Perry Pressley, sued physicians J. Stovall King and Kenneth S. Kammer, as well as McLeod Regional Medical Center (MRMC), for medical malpractice for injuries Perry received while being treated by King and Kammer. Kammer moved for summary judgment on the basis that he owed no duty to Perry. The trial court granted the motion and Jernigan appeals. We affirm.
Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, SCRCP; Baugus v. Wessinger, 303 S.C. 412, 401 S.E.2d 169 (1991). All ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the movant. Id. Viewed in this manner the record reveals the following facts.
King was the sole shareholder in Carolina Neurological Services, P.A. and had active staff privileges at MRMC. Kammer was King's employee.
On August 2, 1982, Perry complained of a severe headache and he was taken to his physician, Marion Fowler. Perry lost consciousness and was transported to the emergency room at MRMC. The attending physician, King, admitted Perry to MRMC at about 8:55 p.m. On August 3, 1982, at about 8:00 a.m., Kammer, while on call for King, responded to an emergency code from Perry's room and discovered Perry in arrest. Kammer resuscitated Perry, ordered Perry transferred to the intensive care unit, placed him on a respirator, ordered blood gas studies, ordered intravenous fluids to be administered, ordered checks on vital signs, and ordered an immediate CT scan. At about 8:25 or 8:30 a.m., King resumed responsibility for Perry's care.
Neither Kammer nor King reviewed the results of the CT scan. Those results indicated "intracranial hemorrhage, as well as intracranial pressure sufficient to cause brain compression as evidenced by a shift of intracranial contents to the right."
On August 6, 1982, Kammer saw Perry again while on call for King. Kammer ordered another CT scan and, upon receiving[312 S.C. 333] the results, performed immediate surgery to relieve the pressure. Jernigan claims the delay in treating Perry from August 3 through August 6 most probably resulted in permanent brain damage to Perry.
Jernigan brought this action on Perry's behalf against King, Kammer and MRMC. After some discovery Kammer moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and Jernigan appeals.
At oral argument, Jernigan's counsel stated that Jernigan was not claiming that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3903.
...fact unless the plaintiff presents expert testimony on the standard of care and its breach by the defendant." Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 334, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993) (citing Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E.2d 59 II. FELA Section 1 of FELA renders common carrier ......
-
Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
...is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances. Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 440 S.E.2d 379 (Ct.App.1993); Welch v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 251, 317 S.E.2d 758 (Ct.App.1984). A plaintiff must show the physician failed to exer......
-
Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
...degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession under similar conditions and like circumstances. Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 333, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993); Bonaparte v. Floyd, 291 S.C. 427, 434, 354 S.E.2d 40, 45 (Ct.App.1987); Welch v. Whitaker, 282 S.C......
-
Burroughs v. Worsham, No. 3576.
...ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances." Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 333, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993). "The standard for recovery has been summarized, `To recover for medical malpractice, a plaintif......
-
Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3903.
...fact unless the plaintiff presents expert testimony on the standard of care and its breach by the defendant." Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 334, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993) (citing Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E.2d 59 II. FELA Section 1 of FELA renders common carrier ......
-
Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
...is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances. Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 440 S.E.2d 379 (Ct.App.1993); Welch v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 251, 317 S.E.2d 758 (Ct.App.1984). A plaintiff must show the physician failed to exer......
-
Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
...degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession under similar conditions and like circumstances. Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 333, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993); Bonaparte v. Floyd, 291 S.C. 427, 434, 354 S.E.2d 40, 45 (Ct.App.1987); Welch v. Whitaker, 282 S.C......
-
Burroughs v. Worsham, No. 3576.
...ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances." Jernigan v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 333, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1993). "The standard for recovery has been summarized, `To recover for medical malpractice, a plaintif......