Lee v. Suess, No. 24236

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOORE; FINNEY, C.J., TOAL and WALLER, JJ., and A. LEE CHANDLER
Citation318 S.C. 283,457 S.E.2d 344
Docket NumberNo. 24236
Decision Date07 March 1995
PartiesMitchell LEE and Mary Lee, Petitioners, v. Steven SUESS, M.D., Carolina Health Care, P.A., Kenneth Smith, M.D., and Grand Strand Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.A., Defendants, Of whom Steven Suess, M.D., and Carolina Health Care, P.A., are Respondents. . Heard

Page 344

457 S.E.2d 344
Mitchell LEE and Mary Lee, Petitioners,
v.
Steven SUESS, M.D., Carolina Health Care, P.A., Kenneth
Smith, M.D., and Grand Strand Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery, P.A., Defendants,
Of whom Steven Suess, M.D., and Carolina Health Care, P.A.,
are Respondents.
No. 24236.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 7, 1995.
Decided April 17, 1995.

Page 345

Charles L. Henshaw, Jr., and O. Fayrell Furr, Jr., both of the Law Offices of Furr and Henshaw, Columbia, for petitioners.

David A. Brown, Aiken; and Andrew F. Lindemann, Columbia, for respondents.

Donald V. Richardson, Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and Deborah H. Sheffield, all of Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, for defendants Kenneth Smith and Grand Strand Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.A.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial judge's refusal to qualify an expert witness. We reverse.

Petitioners Mitchell and Mary Lee commenced these consolidated actions for medical malpractice and loss of consortium seeking recovery for damages arising from the amputation of Mr. Lee's left leg. Mr. Lee's leg was amputated after it was discovered that a lesion on some existing scar tissue was malignant. Prior to the amputation, Mr. Lee was treated by Dr. Smith, a plastic surgeon, and respondent Dr. Suess, a family practitioner. The Lees alleged both doctors were negligent in their medical care.

At trial, the Lees called Dr. Shafiroff, a plastic reconstructive surgeon. After Dr. Shafiroff testified regarding his qualifications, the trial judge found him qualified as an expert in the field of plastic surgery but not in the field of family practice. Dr. Shafiroff proceeded to give his expert opinion regarding the care rendered by the plastic surgeon, Dr. Smith, but he was not allowed to testify regarding Dr. Suess's care. At the close of the Lees' case, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of Dr. Suess on the ground the Lees failed to present any evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care applicable to family practitioners. 1

On appeal, the Lees contended the trial judge erred when he refused to qualify Dr. Shafiroff as an expert in the field of family practice simply because family practice was not Dr. Shafiroff's area of specialization. See Creed v. City of Columbia, --- S.C. ----, 426...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 24, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 204-205 (2007); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326, 577 ......
  • State v. Kirton, No. 4470.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 17, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 204-205 (2007); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326, 577 ......
  • State v. Lyles, No. 4406.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 6, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Edwards, 374 S.C. 543, 553, 649 S.E.2d 112, 117 (Ct.App.2007); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, ......
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...a relative one, depending on the particular witness's reference to the subject. Gooding, 326 S.C. at 253, 487 S.E.2d at 598; Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995). An expert is not limited to any class of persons acting professionally. Gooding, 326 S.C. at 253, 487 S.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 24, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 204-205 (2007); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326, 577 ......
  • State v. Kirton, No. 4470.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 17, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 204-205 (2007); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326, 577 ......
  • State v. Lyles, No. 4406.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 6, 2008
    ...conclusion that is without evidentiary support." State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 463, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (citing Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995)); accord State v. Edwards, 374 S.C. 543, 553, 649 S.E.2d 112, 117 (Ct.App.2007); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, ......
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...a relative one, depending on the particular witness's reference to the subject. Gooding, 326 S.C. at 253, 487 S.E.2d at 598; Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 285, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995). An expert is not limited to any class of persons acting professionally. Gooding, 326 S.C. at 253, 487 S.E......
  • 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