Johnson v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 07 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2015-001463,Opinion No. 5535 |
| Citation | 422 S.C. 406,812 S.E.2d 207 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Clair Craver JOHNSON, Appellant, v. John ROBERTS, M.D., Respondent. and Clair Craver Johnson, Appellant, v. Medical University of South Carolina, Respondent. |
422 S.C. 406
812 S.E.2d 207
Clair Craver JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
John ROBERTS, M.D., Respondent.
and
Clair Craver Johnson, Appellant,
v.
Medical University of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-001463
Opinion No. 5535
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard September 20, 2017
Filed February 7, 2018
Rehearing Denied April 18, 2018
Jonathan Blake Asbill, of Baker Ravenel & Bender, LLP and Bradley Lewis Lanford, of The Law Office of Kenneth E. Berger, LLC, both of Columbia, for Appellant.
Donald Jay Davis, Jr., Stephen Lynwood Brown, James Edward Scott, IV, and Russell Grainger Hines, all of Young Clement Rivers of Charleston for Respondent John Roberts, M.D.
William Peele Early, of Pierce, Herns, Sloan & Wilson, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent Medical University of South Carolina.
LOCKEMY, C.J.:
In this action Clair Craver Johnson appeals the circuit court's entry of summary judgment in favor of John Roberts, M.D. and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) (collectively Respondents). Johnson asserts the circuit court erred in finding her claims were time barred by the statute of repose applicable to medical malpractice claims. We reverse.
Johnson suffers from bi-polar disorder and depression. In 1997 she experienced severe mania, which required hospitalization. Dr. Roberts, a licensed psychiatrist, began treating Johnson at that time.
Johnson experienced several episodes of mania between 1997 until November 2003. On November 26, 2003, Johnson's doctors admitted her to MUSC, and on December 10, 2003, they began treating her with electroconvulsive
therapy (ECT).1 Between December 10, 2003 and June 26, 2008, Johnson's
doctors treated her with ECT on eighty-six separate occasions. According to Johnson, she sustained serious permanent cognitive damage as a result of the ECT.
Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Intent to File Suit against MUSC on June 25, 2010. She alleged "due to having ECT ... for an extended period of time between 2003 and 2008 [I] am now left with cognitive impairment and memory loss." Johnson also requested an extension to file an expert affidavit because "I am informed and have a good faith belief that the statute of limitation on my cause of action in this matter (absent a discovery exception) will expire within the next 10 days from the date my Notice of Intent to File Suit is filed." On August 20, 2010, Johnson filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice of her Notice of Intent to Sue.
On November 16, 2011, Johnson filed a complaint against MUSC, asserting medical malpractice claims resulting from her ECT treatments. Johnson claimed, "[d]uring, after and a direct and proximate result of this extensive and involuntary ECT treatment, [she] lacked the mental capacity to understand and appreciate the detrimental effect the ECT had upon her until 2010...." Johnson also filed an affidavit from Harold J. Burstztajn, M.D., corroborating her claims that she was incapacitated as a result of the ECT until 2010. On May 16, 2012, Johnson filed an Amended Complaint against Dr. Roberts for damages resulting from the ECT treatments.
Following discovery, Respondents filed motions for summary judgment alleging Johnson's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. Dr. Roberts contended the first act of negligence would have occurred between 2002 and 2003, meaning the statute of repose would bar any claims filed after 2009. MUSC also asserted, "Plaintiff's complaint against MUSC having arisen out of ECT treatment initiated in 2003 is time barred."
The circuit court held a hearing on Respondents' motions and later issued its order granting Respondents' summary judgment, finding Johnson's claims were time-barred by the statute of repose. Johnson filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). The circuit court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
LAW
"An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the [circuit] court pursuant to Rule 56, SCRCP." Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc. , 349 S.C. 356, 361, 563 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2002). A circuit court should grant a motion for summary judgment when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), SCRCP.
South Carolina law requires claims for medical malpractice be filed 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...." S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-545(A) (Supp. 2017). Section 15-3-545(A) creates a six-year statute of repose, beyond which a patient cannot sue their medical provider for malpractice. Id ., see also Kerr v. Richland Mem. Hosp. , 383 S.C. 146, 148, 678 S.E.2d 809, 810 (2009) ("Accordingly, the statute of repose provision within section 15-35-545(A) applies as an absolute limit applicable in any medical malpractice action."). "A statute of repose creates a substantive right in those protected to be free from liability after a legislatively-determined period of time."
Langley v. Pierce, 313 S.C. 401, 404, 438 S.E.2d 242, 243 (1993) (quoting First United Methodist Church v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862, 866 (4th Cir.1989) ).
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note Respondents assert the arguments Appellant presents to this court are different from the arguments presented to the circuit court and Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Franks
...it was sufficient that Franks objected to the malice instruction and the court ruled on the objection. See Johnson v. Roberts , 422 S.C. 406, 412, 812 S.E.2d 207, 210 (Ct. App. 2018) ("It cannot be said that [the a]ppellant's arguments are clearly preserved. But in light of the foregoing, i......
-
Matthews v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...reflect a legislative judgment that after a period of time, a defendant should be free from liability. Johnson v. Roberts, 812 S.E.2d 207, 209-210, 422 S.C. 406 (S.C. Ct. App. 2018); see generally Goad v. Celotex Corp., 831 F.2d 508, 511 (4th Cir. 1987). Where a statute of repose is enacted......
-
Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island Condo. Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Island Pointe, LLC
...to common law setoff in its order, the point was sufficiently addressed so as to preserve it for appellate review See Johnson v Roberts, 422 S.C. 406, 412, 812 S.E.2d 207, 210 (Ct App 2018) ("It cannot be said that Appellant's arguments are clearly preserved But in light of the foregoing, i......
-
Edmonds v. City of Columbia
... ... precedent and resolve the issue on preservation grounds when ... it clearly is unpreserved." (emphasis added)); ... Johnson v. Roberts, 422 S.C. 406, 412, 812 S.E.2d ... 207, 210 (Ct. App. 2018) (finding the appellant's ... arguments were preserved when the ... ...