Adams v. Amisub ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
    CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
    EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Court of Appeals
    Ann P. Adams, as Personal Representative of the Estate
    of Jacob E. Adams, Deceased, Appellant,
    v.
    Amisub of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical
    Center and d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System; Staci L.
    Versen-Rampey, NP, Individually and as Agent, Servant
    or Employee of South Carolina Emergency Physicians,
    LLC, and as Agent, Servant or Employee of Amisub of
    South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical Center and
    d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System; Jason Price,
    Radiologic Technologist, Individually and as Agent,
    Servant or Employee of Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.,
    d/b/a Piedmont Medical Center and d/b/a Piedmont
    Healthcare System; James E. Reinhardt, Jr., M.D.,
    Individually and as Agent, Servant or Employee of Rock
    Hill Radiology Associates, PA, and as Agent, Servant of
    Employee of Amisub of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a
    Piedmont Medical Center and d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare
    System; and Rock Hill Radiology Associates, P.A., South
    Carolina Emergency Physicians, LLC, Defendants,
    of whom Amisub of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont
    Medical Center and d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System;
    Staci L. Versen-Rampey, NP, Individually and as Agent,
    Servant or Employee of South Carolina Emergency
    Physicians, LLC, and as Agent, Servant or Employee of
    Amisub of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical
    Center and d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System; Jason
    Price, Radiologic Technologist, Individually and as
    Agent, Servant or Employee of Amisub of South
    Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical Center and d/b/a
    Piedmont Healthcare System are Respondents.
    Appellate Case No. 2012-212832
    Appeal From York County
    John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-461
    Heard November 13, 2013 – Filed December 11, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    James W. Boyd, of James W. Boyd, Attorney, of Rock
    Hill, for Appellant.
    Amy Miller Snyder and N. Heyward Clarkson, III, both
    of Clarkson, Walsh, Terrell & Coulter, PA, of Greenville,
    for Respondents Staci L. Versen-Rampey and SC
    Emergency Physicians, LLC; and William U. Gunn, of
    Holcombe Bomar, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondents
    Amisub of South Carolina and Jason Price.
    KONDUROS, J.: Ann Adams appeals the circuit court's order finding she failed
    to comply with section 15-79-125 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2012) when
    she did not file an expert affidavit contemporaneously with her Notice of Intent to
    File Suit for medical malpractice. We affirm.
    On October 28, 2008, Adams's husband died after a week-long stay in the hospital
    following a fall. On October 20, 2011, Adams, as personal representative of her
    husband's estate, filed a notice for wrongful death and survival claims against the
    hospital, nurse practitioner, radiologic technologist, and radiologist and his
    practice. Section 15-79-125 requires that before a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit for
    medical malpractice, the party file a notice, contemporaneously with an expert
    affidavit, and serve them on the defendant. § 15-79-125(A). Adams failed to
    contemporaneously file her expert affidavit. Each defendant filed a motion to
    dismiss, and the circuit court granted all of the motions. Adams appealed, arguing
    the circuit court erred in its interpretation of section 15-79-125 and section 15-36-
    100 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2012). We disagree.
    Both sides concede Ranucci v. Crain, 
    397 S.C. 168
    , 
    723 S.E.2d 242
     (Ct. App.
    2012), cert. granted, (Sept. 6, 2013), controls our interpretation of these statutes.
    In Ranucci, this court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Ranucci's notice for
    her failure to comply with the contemporaneous filing requirement of section 15-
    79-125 because she filed her expert affidavit forty-five days after she filed her
    notice. 397 S.C. at 178, 723 S.E.2d at 247. The court rejected the same argument
    Adams makes here—that the affidavit requirements of section 15-36-100 permitted
    her to file the affidavit late without violating section 15-79-125. Id.
    As in Ranucci, because Adams failed to comply with the mandatory filing
    requirements of section 15-79-125, the circuit court's order is
    AFFIRMED.
    PIEPER, J., concurs.
    FEW, C.J., concurring: I concur with the majority that Ranucci controls our
    interpretation of the statutes at issue in this appeal. However, as I explained in my
    concurring opinion in Ranucci, I believe our interpretation requires the conclusion
    that the statute of limitations has expired on any civil action Adams might have
    brought for malpractice. Therefore, the issues raised in this appeal are moot, and I
    would dismiss the appeal. See Ranucci, 397 S.C. at 179-81, 723 S.E.2d at 248-49
    (Few, C.J., concurring). But cf. Ross v. Waccamaw Cmty. Hosp., 
    404 S.C. 56
    , 66,
    
    744 S.E.2d 547
    , 552 (2013) (upholding the circuit court's continued jurisdiction
    over the notice after the time limits of section 15-79-125 have expired, but not
    addressing the right of a plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint after the
    expiration of the statute of limitations).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-461

Filed Date: 12/11/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024