20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman Ex Rel. Estate of Hoffman v. Powellgreen2 sentences2019The six-year period "constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered." Hoffman v. Powell , 298 S.C. 338 , 339-40, 380 S.E.2d 821 , 821 (1989). 2019The six-year period "constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered." Hoffman v. Powell , 298 S.C. 338 , 339-40, 380 S.E.2d 821 , 821 (1989). | 4 | 7 |
David v. McLeod Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2014Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247-48 , 626 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (2006) (providing, for a genuine issue of material fact to exist in a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant's departure from generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages). 2014Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247-48 , 626 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (2006) (providing, for a genuine issue of material fact to exist in a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant's departure from generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages). | 2 | 4 |
Dunbar v. Carlsongreen2 sentences2004Harrison, 354 S.C. at 138 , 580 S.E.2d at 114 ; see also Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 339-340 , 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (1989) (holding that the statute of repose “constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered.”); Dunbar v. Carlson, 341 S.C. 261, 269 , 533 S.E.2d 913, 917 (Ct.App.2000) (“[T]he statute of repose imposes an outer limit for filing a medical malpractice action, regardless of when it is discovered.”). 2004Harrison, 354 S.C. at 138 , 580 S.E.2d at 114 ; see also Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 339-340 , 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (1989) (holding that the statute of repose “constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered.”); Dunbar v. Carlson, 341 S.C. 261, 269 , 533 S.E.2d 913, 917 (Ct.App.2000) (“[T]he statute of repose imposes an outer limit for filing a medical malpractice action, regardless of when it is discovered.”). | 2 | 2 |
Langley v. Piercegreen2 sentences2019In Langley v. Pierce , 313 S.C. 401 , 438 S.E.2d 242 (1993), we quoted with approval the following from Kissel v. Rosenbaum , 579 N.E.2d 1322 , 1326-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) : A statute of repose constitutes a substantive definition of rights rather than a procedural limitation provided by a statute of limitation. 2019In Langley v. Pierce , 313 S.C. 401 , 438 S.E.2d 242 (1993), we quoted with approval the following from Kissel v. Rosenbaum , 579 N.E.2d 1322 , 1326-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) : A statute of repose constitutes a substantive definition of rights rather than a procedural limitation provided by a statute of limitation. | 1 | 2 |
Harrison v. Bevilacquagreen2 sentences2009This Court previously held, “the six-year repose provision in [section] 15-3-545 ‘constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered.’ ” Harrison v. Bevilac *148 qua, 354 S.C. 129, 137-38 , 580 S.E.2d 109, 113 (2003) (quoting Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 339-40 , 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (1989)). 2009This Court previously held, “the six-year repose provision in [section] 15-3-545 ‘constitutes an outer limit beyond which a medical malpractice claim is barred, regardless of whether it has or should have been discovered.’ ” Harrison v. Bevilac *148 qua, 354 S.C. 129, 137-38 , 580 S.E.2d 109, 113 (2003) (quoting Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 339-40 , 380 S.E.2d 821, 821 (1989)). | 1 | 2 |
Mendenall v. Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLCgreen1 sentence2024See Mendenall, 401 S.C. at 563 n.4, 738 S.E.2d at 254 n.4 (discussing Tatum v. Med. | 1 | 1 |
Pederson v. Gouldgreen2 sentences2023See Pederson v. Gould, 288 S.C. 141, 143 , 341 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1986) ("In medical malpractice actions, the plaintiff must use expert testimony to establish both the required standard of care and the defendant's failure to conform to that standard, unless the subject matter lies within the ambit of common knowledge and experience, so that no special learning is needed to evaluate the conduct of the defendant." (emphasis added)). 2023See Pederson v. Gould, 288 S.C. 141, 143 , 341 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1986) ("In medical malpractice actions, the plaintiff must use expert testimony to establish both the required standard of care and the defendant's failure to conform to that standard, unless the subject matter lies within the ambit of common knowledge and experience, so that no special learning is needed to evaluate the conduct of the defendant." (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Pelstringgreen2 sentences2014See Fisher v. Pelstring, 817 F.Supp.2d 791 , 807 n. 8 (D.S.C.2011) (analyzing procedures for initiating medical malpractice claims and stating “[sjection 15-79-125 also does not include any language indicating that the case number under which a Notice of Intent is served on a defendant must be the same as the case number assigned to the complaint served on that defendant if a civil action is ultimately initiated”). 2014See Fisher v. Pelstring, 817 F. Supp. 2d 791 , 807 n.8 (D.S.C. 2011) (analyzing procedures for initiating medical malpractice claims and stating "[s]ection 15-79-125 also does not include any language indicating that the case number under which a Notice of Intent is served on a defendant must be the same as the case number assigned to the complaint served on that defendant if a civil action is ultimately initiated"). | 1 | 1 |
Hoard Ex Rel. Hoard v. Roper Hosp., Inc.green2 sentences2014Hoard v. Roper Hosp., Inc., 387 S.C. 539, 546 , 694 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2010). 2014Hoard v. Roper Hosp., Inc., 387 S.C. 539, 546 , 694 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Basinger v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2011Basinger v. Sullivan, 540 N.E.2d 91, 93-94 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). 2011Basinger v. Sullivan, 540 N.E.2d 91, 93-94 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Regional Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2008Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Reg’l Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 163 , 612 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2005). 2008Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Reg’l Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 163 , 612 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Hook Ex Rel. Estate of Summers v. Rothsteingreen2 sentences2008In Hook v. Rothstein, the court of appeals explicitly held that lack of informed consent cases fall under the medical malpractice framework. 281 S.C. 541, 553 , 316 S.E.2d 690, 698 (Ct.App.1984) (holding a patient must show that, based on expert testimony of the standard of care, the physician provided insufficient information to enable the patient to make an intelligent and informed decision). 2008In Hook v. Rothstein, the court of appeals explicitly held that lack of informed consent cases fall under the medical malpractice framework. 281 S.C. 541, 553 , 316 S.E.2d 690, 698 (Ct.App.1984) (holding a patient must show that, based on expert testimony of the standard of care, the physician provided insufficient information to enable the patient to make an intelligent and informed decision). | 1 | 1 |
Arant v. Kresslergreen2 sentences2000See Arant v. Kressler, 327 S.C. 225, 229 , 489 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1997) (stating when there is conflicting testimony regarding time of discovery of facts giving notice of a medical malpractice claim, the date on which discovery should have been made becomes an issue for the jury to decide); Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 113 , 124 S.E.2d 781, 786 (1962) (same). 2000See Arant v. Kressler, 327 S.C. 225, 229 , 489 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1997) (stating when there is conflicting testimony regarding time of discovery of facts giving notice of a medical malpractice claim, the date on which discovery should have been made becomes an issue for the jury to decide); Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 113 , 124 S.E.2d 781, 786 (1962) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Fingergreen2 sentences2000See Arant v. Kressler, 327 S.C. 225, 229 , 489 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1997) (stating when there is conflicting testimony regarding time of discovery of facts giving notice of a medical malpractice claim, the date on which discovery should have been made becomes an issue for the jury to decide); Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 113 , 124 S.E.2d 781, 786 (1962) (same). 2000See Arant v. Kressler, 327 S.C. 225, 229 , 489 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1997) (stating when there is conflicting testimony regarding time of discovery of facts giving notice of a medical malpractice claim, the date on which discovery should have been made becomes an issue for the jury to decide); Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 113 , 124 S.E.2d 781, 786 (1962) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herbolsheimer v. SMS Holding Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Bolstering our reasoning is the fact that the case our supreme court favorably cited in Mendenall describes a co-employee's medical malpractice claim as an example of "the type of situation to which the dual[ ]persona doctrine was intended to apply." Herbolsheimer, 608 N.W.2d at 493 (citing Howard, 523 N.W.2d at 221 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Howard v. White
green
1 sentence2024Bolstering our reasoning is the fact that the case our supreme court favorably cited in Mendenall describes a co-employee's medical malpractice claim as an example of "the type of situation to which the dual[ ]persona doctrine was intended to apply." Herbolsheimer, 608 N.W.2d at 493 (citing Howard, 523 N.W.2d at 221 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kissel v. Rosenbaum
green
1 sentence2019In Langley v. Pierce , 313 S.C. 401 , 438 S.E.2d 242 (1993), we quoted with approval the following from Kissel v. Rosenbaum , 579 N.E.2d 1322 , 1326-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) : A statute of repose constitutes a substantive definition of rights rather than a procedural limitation provided by a statute of limitation. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McMaster v. Dewitt
green
2 sentences2015Carter and Cogburn rely on the case of McMaster v. Dewitt, 411 S.C. 138 , 767 S.E.2d 451 (Ct.App.2014), cert denied, for the proposition that a plaintiff “cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact ... by submitting conflicting statements of fact ... either by affidavit or within one’s own deposition testimony.” McMaster involved a medical malpractice claim brought against a doctor for overprescribing the appellant the drug Adderall. 2015Carter and Cogburn rely on the case of McMaster v. Dewitt, 411 S.C. 138 , 767 S.E.2d 451 (Ct.App.2014), cert denied, for the proposition that a plaintiff “cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact ... by submitting conflicting statements of fact ... either by affidavit or within one’s own deposition testimony.” McMaster involved a medical malpractice claim brought against a doctor for overprescribing the appellant the drug Adderall. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Grier v. Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014On appeal, this Court considered the question of whether “the pre-suit affidavit a plaintiff statutorily is required to file before bringing a medical malpractice claim must contain an expert opinion on proximate cause.” Id. at 535 , 725 S.E.2d at 695 . 2014On appeal, this Court considered the question of whether “the pre-suit affidavit a plaintiff statutorily is required to file before bringing a medical malpractice claim must contain an expert opinion on proximate cause.” Id. at 535 , 725 S.E.2d at 695 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Harvey v. Strickland
green
2 sentences2008Additionally, in Harvey v. Strickland, 350 S.C. 303, 312 , 566 S.E.2d 529 ,'534 (2002), we held that South Carolina recognizes a medical malpractice claim stemming from lack of informed consent. 2008Additionally, in Harvey v. Strickland, 350 S.C. 303, 312 , 566 S.E.2d 529 ,'534 (2002), we held that South Carolina recognizes a medical malpractice claim stemming from lack of informed consent. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ex Parte Estate of Evans v. Lynch Ex Rel. Estate of Evans
green
2 sentences2006In Ex parte Estate of Evans , the respondent filed a petition to reopen an estate in order to assert a medical malpractice claim against the estate and decedents liability insurer. 299 S.C. at 367 , 384 S.E.2d at 749 . 2006In Ex parte Estate of Evans , the respondent filed a petition to reopen an estate in order to assert a medical malpractice claim against the estate and decedents liability insurer. 299 S.C. at 367 , 384 S.E.2d at 749 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant
green
2 sentences2004O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995), overruled on other grounds by I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406 , 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000). 2004O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995), overruled on other grounds by I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406 , 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
O'TUEL v. Villani
green
2 sentences2004O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995), overruled on other grounds by I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406 , 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000). 2004O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995), overruled on other grounds by I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406 , 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.