Jackson v. Edgefield Medical Clinic

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
Cecelia Jackson, Personal Representative of the Estate of
William Peterson, Appellant,
v.
Edgefield Medical Clinic or Edgefield Medical Clinic,
P.A., Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001031
Appeal From Edgefield County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-057
Heard January 6, 2016 – Filed February 10, 2016
AFFIRMED
James Stephen Welch, of McGowan Hood & Felder,
LLC, of Anderson, and Jordan Christopher Calloway, of
McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Rock Hill, for
Appellant.
James D. Nance, of Nance, McCants & Massey, of
Aiken, and Andrew F. Lindemann, of Davidson &
Lindemann, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this medical malpractice action, Cecelia Jackson, as personal
representative of the estate of William Peterson, argues the trial court erred in (1)
granting Edgefield Medical Clinic's (EMC's) motion for a directed verdict and (2)
denying her motion for a new trial nisi additur. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting EMC's motion for a directed
verdict on Jackson's claim for conscious pain and suffering: McMillan v. Oconee
Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 367 S.C. 559, 564, 626 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2006) ("In ruling on
motions for a directed verdict . . . , the trial court is required to view the evidence
and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motions."); Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308,
319, 656 S.E.2d 382, 388 (Ct. App. 2007) ("When considering directed verdict
motions, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has authority to decide
credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or evidence."); id. ("The
issue must be submitted to the jury whenever there is material evidence tending to
establish the issue in the mind of a reasonable juror."); Hinkle v. Nat'l Cas. Ins.
Co., 354 S.C. 92, 96, 579 S.E.2d 616, 618 (2003) (holding the appellate court will
reverse the circuit court's ruling on a directed verdict motion only when no
evidence supports the ruling or the ruling is controlled by an error of law); David v.
McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 248, 626 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2006) (holding a
plaintiff in a medical malpractice case "must show that the defendants' departure
from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause
of the plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages"); Martasin v. Hilton Head Health
Sys., L.P., 364 S.C. 430, 438, 613 S.E.2d 795, 800 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[T]he expert
testimony as to proximate cause must provide a significant causal link between the
alleged negligence and the injuries suffered, rather than a tenuous and hypothetical
connection.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a new
trial nisi additur: Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 257, 533 S.E.2d 906, 911 (Ct.
App. 2000) ("The consideration of a motion for a new trial nisi additur requires the
court to consider the adequacy of the verdict in light of the evidence presented.");
O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527, 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) ("The denial of a
motion for a new trial nisi is within the trial judge's discretion and will not be
reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Todd v. Joyner, 385 S.C. 509,
517-18, 685 S.E.2d 613, 618 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A trial court does not abuse its
discretion in denying a motion for new trial nisi additur where evidence in the
record supports the jury's verdict.").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.