Moultrie v. Medical University of South Carolina

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HARWELL; LEWIS
• Citation: Moultrie v. Medical University of South Carolina, 280 S.C. 159, 311 S.E.2d 730 (S.C. 1984)
• Decision Date: 18 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22030,22030
• Parties: , 15 Ed. Law Rep. 1359 Leonard MOULTRIE and Pearl Deas, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Sandra D. Moultrie, Respondents-Appellants, v. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, a University of the State of South Carolina; Warren Y. Adkins, M.D.; Steven J. Kroll, M.D.; Jacquelyn A. Going, M.D.; Stan Woerth, M.D.; and J.D. Thomas, M.D., Respondents, of whom Medical University of South Carolina, a University of the State of South Carolina, and J.D. Thomas, M.D., are Appellants-Respondents.

Page 730

311 S.E.2d 730

280 S.C. 159, 15 Ed. Law Rep. 1359

Leonard MOULTRIE and Pearl Deas, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Sandra D. Moultrie, Respondents-Appellants, v. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, a University of the State of South Carolina; Warren Y. Adkins, M.D.; Steven J Kroll, M.D.; Jacquelyn A. Going, M.D.; Stan Woerth, M.D. and J.D. Thomas, M.D., Respondents of whom Medical University of South Carolina, a University of the State of South Carolina, and J.D. Thomas M.D., are Appellants-Respondents.

No. 22030.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 18, 1984.

Thomas Dewey Wise, of Wise, Cole & Pearlman, and Morris D. Rosen, of Rosen, Oberman & Rosen, Charleston, for appellants-respondents.

W. Jefferson Leath, Jr., of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, and Wade H. Logan, III, of Holmes, Thomson, Logan & Cantrell, Charleston, for respondents.

Arnold S. Goodstein, of Goodstein, Douglas, Bowling & Phillips, Charleston, for respondents-appellants.

HARWELL, Justice:

This medical malpractice action arose out of the wrongful death of Sandra Deas Moultrie on October 13, 1978 following a surgical operation at the Medical University Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina. A Charleston County jury returned a $100,000 verdict against the Medical University and Dr. J.D. Thomas. We affirm in part and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Mrs. Moultrie was admitted to the hospital for a minor ear operation, a tympanoplasty. Dr. Stan Woerth anesthetized her with a mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen. Dr. Woerth was assisted by a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and a Student Registered Nurse Anesthetist. Dr. J.D. Thomas relieved Dr. Woerth as anesthesiologist during the procedure. Dr. Thomas was also supervising another operation nearby.

Near the end of the surgery, one of the three surgeons performing the operation requested that the student anesthetist operating the anesthesia machine turn off the nitrous oxide. The patient shortly began to experience difficulties. Dr. Thomas was summoned and discovered that the oxygen valve was off and the nitrous oxide valve on. He turned on the oxygen and attempted to resuscitate the patient. Mrs. Moultrie had suffered irreversible brain damage. She lapsed into a coma and subsequently died.

During the course of the trial, the judge granted an involuntary nonsuit to Dr. Stan Woerth and a directed verdict for the three surgeons. At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed a verdict against the Medical University on the issue of liability. The jury returned a verdict of $100,000 against Dr. Thomas and the Medical University.

Appellants, the co-administrators of Mrs. Moultrie's estate, contend that the trial court erred in prohibiting their medical expert, Dr. Greene, from testifying to the national standards of care for anesthesiologists during tympanoplasties. We agree. Since the trial of the case, we have discarded the "locality rule". In King v. Williams, 276 S.C. 478, 279 S.E.2d 618 (1981), we quoted with approval Pederson v. Dumouchel, 72 Wash.2d 73, 431 P.2d 973 (1967), for the proposition that "no longer is it proper to limit the definition of the standard of care which a medical doctor or dentist must meet solely to the practice or custom of a particular locality, or a geographic area." King v. Williams, 276 S.C. at 482, 279 S.E.2d at 620. In the new trial, Dr. Greene should be allowed to testify regarding a national standard of care for anesthesiologists during this type of surgery.

Dr. Thomas asserts that he is protected under the immunity granted to "employees" of state-supported hospitals in S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-50 (1982). This argument lacks merit. Although Dr. Thomas is a Professor of...