Watson ex rel. Watson v. Chapman

• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CURETON.
• Citation: Watson ex rel. Watson v. Chapman, 343 S.C. 471, 540 S.E.2d 484 (S.C. App. 2000)
• Decision Date: 18 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3272.,3272.
• Parties: MacKennon WATSON, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Susan WATSON, Respondent, v. David CHAPMAN, M.D., Appellant. and Susan Watson and Don Watson, Respondents, v. David Chapman, M.D., Appellant.

343 S.C. 471

540 S.E.2d 484

MacKennon WATSON, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Susan WATSON, Respondent, v. David CHAPMAN, M.D., Appellant. and Susan Watson and Don Watson, Respondents, v. David Chapman, M.D., Appellant.

No. 3272.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard November 8, 2000.

Filed December 18, 2000.

Rehearing Denied February 12, 2001.

John B. McCutcheon, Jr., Mary Ruth M. Baxter, and Arrigo P. Carotti, all of McCutcheon, McCutcheon & Baxter, of Conway, for appellant.

David W. Goldman, Diane M. Rodriguez, and Kristi F. Curtis, all of Bryan, Bahnmuller, Goldman & McElveen, of Sumter, for respondents.

CURETON, Judge:

In this medical malpractice action, Susan and Don Watson sued Dr. David Chapman for the premature delivery of their son MacKennon and the resulting permanent injury to his lungs. A jury found Dr. Chapman negligent and awarded actual damages in the amount of $106,000 to MacKennon and $100,000 to his parents. Dr. Chapman appeals. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mrs. Watson sought obstetrical care for her third pregnancy from Baroody, Chapman & Chapman, OB-GYN, in late 1991. Initially, she was examined by Dr. David Chapman, a partner in the practice, on or about December 30, 1991. Dr. Chapman informed Mrs. Watson that her delivery date would be August 11, 1992. Thereafter, Mrs. Watson saw another physician of the practice for her regularly scheduled office visits.¹ During the pregnancy, Mrs. Watson developed gestational diabetes and was referred to another physician who treated the condition with a restricted diet.

Mrs. Watson next encountered Dr. Chapman in the thirtyfourth or thirty-fifth week of her pregnancy during an office visit. At that time, Dr. Chapman scheduled Mrs. Watson for an amniocentesis to be performed on July 15, 1992, with a possible cesarean section to follow on July 16th.²

During the July 15th appointment, Dr. Chapman took an ultrasound, but was unable to perform the amniocentesis due to the position of the placenta. Nevertheless, he informed Mrs. Watson that her baby was "big enough" for delivery and that he would perform a cesarean section the next day even though she was not in labor and there were no signs of fetal distress.

Dr. Chapman delivered MacKennon by cesarean section on July 16, 1992. He weighed eight pounds, four ounces at birth. Despite MacKennon's size, his lungs were not fully developed because his mother's gestational diabetes had retarded their normal development. Dr. Chapman had not determined the state of MacKennon's lungs prior to delivery even though a diagnostic test was available to assess fetal lung maturity.

MacKennon developed Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) within twenty-four hours of birth, for which he was intubated with oxygen and transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at McLeod Regional Medical Center. MacKennon was discharged from McLeod on August 3, 1992. Although his discharge summary indicated his prognosis was good, MacKennon continued to have breathing difficulties which required further hospital visits and treatment.

On July 13, 1995, the Watsons filed the instant action against Dr. Chapman alleging he was negligent in delivering MacKennon four weeks premature without medical justification and in violation of accepted medical standards. They also asserted that Dr. Chapman "was addicted to the use of drugs and narcotics to the extent that he was not mentally, emotionally or physically able to have provided competent medical care and attention to" Mrs. Watson and MacKennon.

Prior to trial, the circuit court rejected the Watsons' motion to compel discovery of Dr. Chapman's alcohol treatment records because such disclosure would violate federal and state confidentiality statutes. However, the trial court also rejected Dr. Chapman's motion in limine to exclude all reference to his alcohol addiction.

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Admission of Evidence Concerning Alcohol Addiction

Dr. Chapman argues the trial court abused it discretion by admitting irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence concerning his alcohol addiction. He also contends federal and state confidentiality statutes prohibit such disclosures. We disagree.

On May 11, 1993, Dr. Chapman entered into a written agreement ("Interim Agreement") with the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners ("Board") wherein he acknowledged his addiction to alcohol and agreed to treatment and monitoring in exchange for the Board's commitment to continue his licensure on a conditional basis subject to the terms of the agreement. The Interim Agreement further provided "that, pursuant to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-10, et seq. (1986)), this Interim Agreement is a public document." The Interim Agreement was replaced by a private agreement on August 23, 1995.

During discovery, Dr. Chapman revealed he had been treated for alcohol dependency at Fenwick Hall in 1989 and that he had returned to Fenwick for inpatient treatment less than a month after MacKennon's July 16, 1992 delivery. He explained that he "went back to Fenwick at that time [because he had] returned to drinking on the weekends and... thought [he] was drinking too much on the weekends." Dr. Chapman also admitted he was drinking during the weekend prior to MacKennon's delivery and that his partners in the OB-GYN practice ousted him from the partnership less than 30 days after the delivery. Dr. Chapman claimed the partners believed he "had ample time for rehabilitative measures and due to certain recent events they felt that it was necessary to sever their partnership with me."

Dr. Chapman filed a motion in limine to exclude the Interim Agreement and his admissions concerning his alcohol dependency because "such evidence is irrelevant to this litigation, more prejudicial than probative, and that admission of such evidence is prohibited by both State law (South Carolina Code Ann. § 44-22-100) and Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2) and applicable case law." Specifically, he argued the evidence in question was irrelevant because it did not demonstrate he was impaired at the time he treated Mrs. Watson and would only serve to prejudice him in the eyes of the jury. The trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence because "[t]he probative value is not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect." Dr. Chapman renewed his objection to the evidence at trial and argues on appeal that it was error for the jury to consider it.

The admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Gamble v. Int'l Paper Realty Corp., 323 S.C. 367, 474 S.E.2d 438 (1996); Washington v. Whitaker, 317 S.C. 108, 451 S.E.2d 894 (1994); Carlyle v. Tuomey Hosp., 305 S.C. 187, 407 S.E.2d 630 (1991). In this case, the trial court found that the evidence of Dr. Chapman's alcohol addiction was highly relevant to the Watsons' negligence claims such that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. In so finding, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Relevant evidence is merely evidence which tends to prove or disprove the existence of a material fact. See Rule 401, SCRE (defining relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"). The dictates of Rule 401 are subject to the balancing requirement of Rule 403, SCRE, which requires a court to exclude relevant evidence upon a showing that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. See Rule 403, SCRE (excluding relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice").

The fact that a physician may have been an alcoholic while practicing medicine does not, in and of itself, create a separate issue or claim of negligence; however, it is relevant "when that alcoholism translates into conduct falling below the applicable standard of care." Ornelas v. Fry, 151 Ariz. 324, 727 P.2d 819, 823 (Ct.App.1986). The part, if any, which Dr. Chapman's alcohol dependency played in his decision making process was a highly contested issue in this case and was properly submitted to the jury for a decision. Although Chapman claimed he was not under the influence at the time he decided not to perform the amniocentesis or at the time of the surgical delivery, the Watsons put forth sufficient evidence to the contrary thereby creating a jury question. Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect.

Dr. Chapman's reliance on federal and state confidentiality statutes as a legal basis for excluding the evidence of his alcohol dependency is misplaced because the evidence complained of is not within the ambit of the statutes.

The federal confidentiality statute provides in pertinent part:

Records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States shall, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, be confidential and be disclosed only for the purposes and under the circumstances expressly authorized under subsection (b) of this section.

42 U.S.C.A. § 290dd-2(a) (Supp.2000) (emphasis added). Obviously, the Interim Agreement is not a patient diagnostic or treatment record as described by the statute.

Assuming that the Interim Agreement fell within the protection afforded by the statute, Dr. Chapman relinquished that protection by agreeing to the public disclosure of the agreement. See id...