Wilson v. Shannon
Citation | 386 S.E.2d 257,299 S.C. 512 |
Decision Date | 10 May 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 1376,1376 |
Parties | Danny WILSON, Appellant, v. Dr. Samuel SHANNON, Respondent. . Heard |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
T. Alexander Beard and William S. Coleman, Jr. of Cooper, Beard & Dibble, Columbia, and J. Lawrence Duffy, Jr., Charleston, for appellant.
Jeter E. Rhodes, Jr., and John C. Bradley, Jr. of Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Rhodes, Columbia, for respondent.
This is an action in negligence for medical malpractice. At the close of the evidence, the circuit court directed a verdict for the doctor, Samuel Shannon, on the ground that the action was time barred by operation of Section 15-3-545, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. The patient, Danny Wilson, appeals. We affirm.
Wilson commenced the action by filing on September 21, 1984. He served Shannon with the summons and complaint on October 2, 1984. The following January, Wilson filed an amended complaint. Shannon answered the amended complaint with a general denial and pleaded the statute of limitations as a bar to the suit.
The question presented for our decision is whether Wilson's alleged cause of action accrued before October 2, 1981. If it did, the ruling of the trial judge was correct and the judgment must be affirmed.
The statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions provides that such actions must be commenced "within three years from the date of the treatment, omission or operation giving rise to the cause of action or three years from date of discovery or when it reasonably ought to have been discovered, not to exceed six years from date of occurrence." Section 15-3-545; Austin v. Conway Hospital, Inc., 292 S.C. 334, 356 S.E.2d 153 (Ct.App.1987).
Under the discovery rule, the statute does not run from the date of the negligent act, but from the date when the injury resulting from the wrongful conduct either is discovered or may be discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Smith v. Smith, 291 S.C. 420, 354 S.E.2d 36 (1987); Austin v. Conway Hospital, Inc., supra; Dillon County School District Number Two v. Lewis Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 286 S.C. 207, 332 S.E.2d 555 (Ct.App.1985). One is charged with discovery when the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some claim against the defendant might exist. Austin v. Conway Hospital, Inc., supra. The test is an objective one. Id.
In this case, Wilson alleges that Shannon was negligent in using the drug Valium to treat him for chronic anxiety and depression. The evidence shows Wilson first went to Shannon in December 1971 for an anxiety disorder that manifested itself in the form of panic attacks. Wilson was under Shannon's medical care from that time until October 6, 1981, when Shannon terminated care.
During this period, Shannon routinely prescribed Valium as the treatment of choice for Wilson's malady. Beginning sometime in 1974, Wilson told Shannon he was not being successfully treated and his condition was worsening. Shannon continued to prescribe Valium, merely altering the dosage. Over time, it appears Wilson became addicted to Valium, although it was not effective in treating his condition.
In January, 1981, while still under Shannon's care, Wilson went to Dr. Benny Marshall for treatment. According to Wilson, on his first visit, Marshall reviewed his medical record. He explained that Wilson did not need to be on Valium. However, he could not take Wilson off...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fisher v. Pelstring
...a lawsuit against a physician for negligently prescribing Valium to treat the plaintiff's anxiety and depression. 299 S.C. 512, 386 S.E.2d 257, 258 (S.C.Ct.App.1989). In Wilson, the court held the plaintiff's claims accrued by the date another physician told him he should be on an antidepre......
-
Preer v. Mims
...barred. Preer brought this action on April 29, 1993; accordingly, he is barred by the statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Shannon, 299 S.C. 512, 386 S.E.2d 257 (Ct.App.1989) (Facts actually known by plaintiff were sufficient to put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice tha......
- The State v. Bantan
-
Luberda v. Purdue Frederick Corp.
...Appeals affirmed a grant of motion for directed verdict at trial on the basis of the statute of limitations in Wilson v. Shannon, 299 S.C. 512, 386 S.E.2d 257 (Ct. App. 1989). In that case, the court found that facts actually known by plaintiff were sufficient to put a person of common know......