Jernigan v. King, No. 2112

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBRUCE LITTLEJOHN
Citation440 S.E.2d 379,312 S.C. 331
PartiesRodney 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 Date03 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 2112

Page 379

440 S.E.2d 379
312 S.C. 330
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.
No. 2112.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Nov. 3, 1993.
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
33 practice notes
  • Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3903.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 6, 2004
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 9, 2002
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3903.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 6, 2004
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 9, 2002
    ...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......
  • 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