Stallings v. Ratliff, No. 0950

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: BELL
• Citation: 292 S.C. 349,356 S.E.2d 414
• Parties: Naomi STALLINGS, Appellant, v. Dr. Jack RATLIFF, Respondent, and Daniel M. STALLINGS, Jr., Appellant, v. Dr. Jack RATLIFF, Respondent. . Heard
• Decision Date: 19 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 0950

Page 414

356 S.E.2d 414 292 S.C. 349 Naomi STALLINGS, Appellant,
v.
Dr. Jack RATLIFF, Respondent,
and
Daniel M. STALLINGS, Jr., Appellant,
v.
Dr. Jack RATLIFF, Respondent. No. 0950. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard Feb. 19, 1987.
Decided May 4, 1987.

Page 415

Donald E. Jonas, Columbia, and Frampton W. Toole, Aiken, for appellants.

David A. Brown and James M. Holly, Aiken, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

[292 S.C. 350] Naomi Stallings brought this action for injuries she allegedly received as a result of the negligence of her physician, Dr. Jack Ratliff. The companion case involving a loss of consortium claim by her husband was consolidated for trial. Stallings alleges she suffered a perforation of her esophagus during an esophagoscopy undertaken without her informed consent. At the close of the evidence, the circuit court granted Ratliff's motion for a directed verdict. Stallings and her husband appeal. We reverse and remand.

Stallings works as a cook at a restaurant in Aiken. One day, while eating a piece of chicken, she felt what she thought was a small bone lodge in her throat. After Stallings experienced continued discomfort in her throat for the next few days, her employer, Vivian Jolly, took her to the emergency room of a local hospital where she was examined. No bone was discovered. When the discomfort persisted, Mrs. Jolly took Stallings to a physician, who examined her on two occasions without finding any object in her throat. The physician then referred Stallings to Ratliff, a thoracic surgeon, for further evaluation.

Mrs. Jolly accompanied Stallings to Ratliff's office and was present with her at all times. After examining Stallings, Ratliff recommended she undergo a laryngopharyngoscopy under general anesthesia. In this procedure, the physician inserts a rigid tube, called a rigid esophagoscope, into the esophagus. The esophagoscope has a light source which allows the physician to make a visual examination of the esophagus. One risk of the procedure is perforation of the esophagus.

Ratliff performed the laryngopharyngoscopy on Stallings a few days after their initial consultation. During the procedure, he perforated her esophagus. As a result, an emergency thoracotomy had to be performed to repair the perforation.

Stallings tried her case on the theory that Ratliff was under a duty to inform her before obtaining her consent that perforation of the esophagus is a risk of the procedure he was recommending and that he breached this duty by failing to disclose the risk.

The parties agree that a physician is required to disclose those risks which a reasonable medical practitioner in the [292 S.C. 351] same branch of medicine would disclose under the same or similar circumstances. Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690

Page 416

(Ct.App.), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984). They also agree that both the standard of care and the physician's failure to conform to the required standard must ordinarily be established by expert testimony, unless the common knowledge or experience of laymen is comprehensive enough to permit the recognition or inference of negligence from the particular facts. Welch v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 251, 317 S.E.2d 758 (Ct.App.1984); Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E.2d 59 (Ct.App.1984). At issue is whether Stallings presented sufficient expert testimony to create a reasonable inference of negligence.

Ratliff argues a directed verdict was proper for two reasons: (1) there was no expert testimony establishing the standard of care; and (2) there was no expert testimony that Ratliff failed to conform to the required standard of care.

In deciding a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Timmons v. McCutcheon, 284 S.C. 4, 324 S.E.2d 319 (Ct.App.1984). A motion for a directed verdict should not be granted if the evidence, so viewed, is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference. O'Neal v. Carolina Farm Supply of Johnston, Inc., 279 S.C. 490, ...