831 S.E.2d 152
S.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- Infant Julia suffered shoulder dystocia during delivery; mother Christy Byrd sued obstetrician Dr. John B. Browning for malpractice alleging permanent brachial plexus injury.
- Respondents asserted the obstetric emergency statute (S.C. Code §15-32-230) as an affirmative defense, requiring proof that care arose from a genuine emergency, the patient was not medically stable, and there was an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
- Jury was instructed on the statute and asked on the verdict form whether defendants proved the emergency elements; the jury answered yes and found Dr. Browning not grossly negligent.
- Byrd moved for a directed verdict/JNOV and for a new trial arguing respondents failed as a matter of law to prove the ‘‘not medically stable’’ and ‘‘immediate threat’’ elements; the trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, Byrd argued the emergency exception was inapplicable as a matter of law based on fetal monitoring, Apgar scores, and cord gases indicating stability; respondents relied on expert testimony that shoulder dystocia is inherently potentially unstable and poses immediate risk if not promptly resolved.
- The court affirmed, holding the record contained evidence supporting the emergency defense and that evidentiary conflicts and credibility determinations were for the jury; Byrd waived a separate definitional challenge to "medically stable."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the obstetric emergency statute applies as a matter of law | Byrd: statute inapplicable because record (fetal strips, Apgar, blood gases) showed medical stability and no immediate threat | Respondents: shoulder dystocia is by nature a medically unstable emergency that can cause brain injury/death if not promptly resolved; experts testified accordingly | Held: statute could apply — jury reasonably found emergency elements satisfied; appellate court affirms trial denial of JNOV/new trial |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying directed verdict/JNOV | Byrd: no competent evidence of the two remaining statutory elements; directed verdict/JNOV warranted | Respondents: conflicting expert testimony created factual issues for the jury | Held: Denial proper — more than one reasonable inference; credibility and conflicts are jury questions |
| Whether the trial court should have defined "medically stable" for the jury | Byrd: (on appeal) Dr. Ernest’s broad definition renders statute meaningless and should be rejected | Respondents: evidence supported jury charge; no trial objection to the definition omission | Held: Argument not preserved — Byrd failed to request a definition or object at trial, so cannot raise it on appeal |
| Whether inconsistencies in Dr. Browning’s testimony required relief | Byrd: Dr. Browning admitted no immediate threat in first 45 seconds, undermining emergency defense | Respondents: direct testimony supported that baby was not medically stable; contradictions are for jury to resolve | Held: Court will not reweigh credibility; inconsistencies were for the jury, so no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Eades v. Palmetto Cardiovascular & Thoracic, PA, 422 S.C. 196, 810 S.E.2d 848 (statutes derogating common law must be strictly construed)
- Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 640 S.E.2d 486 (appellate review limited to correcting errors of law; jury factual findings stand when supported)
- Allegro, Inc. v. Scully, 418 S.C. 24, 791 S.E.2d 140 (standard for directed verdict/JNOV — deny if evidence permits more than one reasonable inference)
- Small v. Pioneer Machinery, Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 494 S.E.2d 835 (credibility determinations and which parts of testimony to believe are for the jury)
- Bass v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 414 S.C. 558, 780 S.E.2d 252 (appellate courts cannot resolve credibility conflicts)
- Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (issues must be raised at trial to be preserved for appeal)
- Soaper v. Hope Indus., Inc., 306 S.C. 531, 413 S.E.2d 38 (trial court’s denial of new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion)