Knox v. Greenville Hosp. System, No. 3914.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | KITTREDGE, J. |
| Citation | 362 S.C. 566,608 S.E.2d 459 |
| Parties | Robert KNOX and Beatrice Knox, Appellants, v. GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 3914. |
362 S.C. 566
608 S.E.2d 459
v.
GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Respondent
No. 3914.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted November 1, 2004.
Decided January 4, 2005.
Rehearing Denied February 16, 2005.
J. Ben Alexander, Sarah McMillan Purnell and G. Dewey Oxner, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.
Robert and Beatrice Knox appeal the circuit court order granting summary judgment to defendant Greenville Hospital System (Hospital) on his medical negligence claim and her loss of consortium claim, arguing the circuit court erred in finding the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred the claims. Viewing the facts and circumstances in the light most favorable to Knox,1 we find that under the discovery rule he should have reasonably been aware of a potential claim on the date of his injury, May 2, 2000, regardless of the fact that he did not know the extent of his injury until later diagnosed by an orthopedic surgeon. Because the two-year statute of limitations commenced on May 2, 2000, and Knox did not file the present action until May 8, 2002, we find the statute of limitations bars the present action. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the Hospital.
FACTS
On May 2, 2000, Knox sought treatment for high blood pressure at Hospital's emergency room. In an effort to intravenously administer a saline treatment (I.V.) to Knox, a nurse inserted a needle into his wrist. In response, Knox "screamed," "squealed and hollered," and his "whole hand jumped up ... in [his] fingers." Knox's nurse stated that she "hit the wrong thing in there" and "apologized." Although Knox received "plenty of I.V.s before," he knew something was "different" about this one because of the pain, reaction of his hand, and the nurse's admission to "hit[ting] the wrong thing." Knox believed that "the doctor had hit a nerve in there."2 Before the Hospital discharged Knox, he informed his nurses that he was still experiencing pain in his wrist. They told him to treat his wrist with ice packs and to return to the Hospital if he experienced trouble.
The icepacks did not alleviate Knox's wrist pain, which continued unabated. Consequently, on May 9 Knox returned
The Knoxes initiated the present action on May 8, 2002. The Hospital answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred the Knoxes' claims. The Knoxes responded by submitting a memorandum opposing the Hospital's summary judgment motion.3
The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Hospital, ruling that both "Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations." The court noted that Knox — who had received "plenty of I.V.s before" without incident, and experienced admittedly abnormal pain, coupled with the uncharacteristic hand movement, when the nurse inserted the needle in his wrist on May 2, 2000 — "was on notice that a claim against another party might exist." The court consequently found that the applicable two-year statute of limitations began running on that date, May 2, 2000, and had expired prior to the filing of the complaint on May 8, 2002. This appeal followed the denial of a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion for reconsideration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. James, No. 4674.
...of law.” Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2003); Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 569-70, 608 S.E.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.2005); B & B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 270, 603 S.E.2d 629, 631 (Ct.App.2004).LAW/ANALYSIS......
-
State v. Elmore, 4082.
...cocaine was never recovered for evidentiary testing and was only seen briefly by the arresting police officer. James, 362 S.C. at 565, 608 S.E.2d at 459. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, we find the trial court properly denied the directed verdict m......
-
Barron v. Labor Finders of South Carolina, No. 4553.
...of law." Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2003); Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 569-70, 608 S.E.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.2005); B & B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 270, 603 S.E.2d 629, 631 (Ct.App.2004). In determin......
-
McMaster v. Dewitt, No. 5282.
...on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist.” Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 570, 608 S.E.2d 459, 462 (Ct.App.2005) ; see also Dunbar, 341 S.C. at 266, 533 S.E.2d at 916. Here, the evidence demonstrates McMaster suffer......
-
Brown v. James, No. 4674.
...of law.” Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2003); Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 569-70, 608 S.E.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.2005); B & B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 270, 603 S.E.2d 629, 631 (Ct.App.2004).LAW/ANALYSIS......
-
State v. Elmore, 4082.
...cocaine was never recovered for evidentiary testing and was only seen briefly by the arresting police officer. James, 362 S.C. at 565, 608 S.E.2d at 459. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, we find the trial court properly denied the directed verdict m......
-
Barron v. Labor Finders of South Carolina, No. 4553.
...of law." Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2003); Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 569-70, 608 S.E.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.2005); B & B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 270, 603 S.E.2d 629, 631 (Ct.App.2004). In determin......
-
McMaster v. Dewitt, No. 5282.
...on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist.” Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 570, 608 S.E.2d 459, 462 (Ct.App.2005) ; see also Dunbar, 341 S.C. at 266, 533 S.E.2d at 916. Here, the evidence demonstrates McMaster suffer......