Reed v. CareNet

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
Johnnie Mae Reed, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Sandra Gilbert, Appellant,
v.
CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster and Nimal A. Perera, M.D.,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002653
Appeal From Lancaster County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-230
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed May 31, 2017
AFFIRMED
D. Cravens Ravenel, of Baker Ravenel & Bender, LLP,
of Columbia, for Appellant.
George Cox Beighley, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent Nimal A.
Perera.
Perry D. Boulier and Joshua Tate Thompson, both of
Holcombe Bomar, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent
CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster.
PER CURIAM: In this wrongful death and survival action against CareNet, Inc.
of Lancaster and Nimal A. Perera, M.D. (collectively, Respondents), Johnnie Mae
Reed, as personal representative of the estate of Sandra Gilbert, appeals the trial
court's denial of her motion for a new trial following a verdict in favor of
Respondents. On appeal, Reed argues the trial court erred by denying the motion
because it erroneously excluded critical testimony at trial regarding whether Dr.
Perera, Gilbert's primary care physician, deviated from the standard of care while
treating Gilbert. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56
(Ct. App. 2009) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the
discretion of the [trial] court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless
its findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are
controlled by error of law."); Samples v. Mitchell, 329 S.C. 105, 108, 495 S.E.2d
213, 215 (Ct. App. 1997) ("Making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the
beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine
is not a final determination. The moving party, therefore, must make a
contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced."); Parr v. Gaines,
309 S.C. 477, 481, 424 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 1992) ("A motion in limine,
even if granted, does not remove the need for a contemporaneous objection at
trial.").1
AFFIRMED.2
1
Even if this issue were preserved, reversal is unwarranted because Reed was not
prejudiced by the trial court's exclusion of the testimony at trial. See Campbell v.
Jordan, 382 S.C. 445, 452-53, 675 S.E.2d 801, 805 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision
to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion and will not
be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 453, 675 S.E.2d at
805 ("To warrant a reversal based on the admission of evidence, the appellant must
show both error and resulting prejudice."); Jamison v. Ford Motor Co., 373 S.C.
248, 261, 644 S.E.2d 755, 761-62 (Ct. App. 2007) ("To show prejudice, there must
be a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was influenced by the challenged
evidence or the lack thereof."); Commerce Ctr. of Greenville, Inc. v. W. Powers
McElveen & Assocs., Inc., 347 S.C. 545, 559, 556 S.E.2d 718, 726 (Ct. App. 2001)
("Generally, there is no abuse of discretion where the excluded testimony is merely
cumulative of other evidence proffered to the jury.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.