Grier v. Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.
725 S.E.2d 693
S.C.2012Background
- Fee died while under Piedmont Medical Center care; Grier, as personal representative, sued for medical malpractice.
- Circuit court dismissed the claim because the pre-suit expert affidavit did not contain a competent causation opinion.
- Grier filed a nurse's affidavit (Barber) stating breaches of duty contributed to Fee’s death; Piedmont challenged Barber’s qualification to opine on causation.
- Court held Barber was not qualified to render causation opinions; dismissed after plaintiff failed to submit a qualifying affidavit.
- Grier argued the statutes do not require a causation opinion in the pre-suit affidavit; this appeal followed.
- The supreme court held that the pre-suit affidavit is not required to contain a causation opinion and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 15-36-100(B) require causation in the affidavit? | Affidavit need only specify a negligent act or omission, not causation. | The affidavit must include a factual basis supporting causation as part of the claim. | No; causation opinion not required in the affidavit. |
| Does 15-79-125(A) require causation in the pre-suit affidavit? | No explicit causation requirement beyond the statute’s notice provisions. | Affidavit content may be inferred to include causation under the notice-and-affidavit framework. | No; causation need not be stated in the pre-suit affidavit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomasko v. Poole, 349 S.C. 7, 561 S.E.2d 597 (2002) (negligence elements and proximate cause framework)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 548 S.E.2d 854 (2001) (elements of negligence and proximate causation)
- Bloom v. Raviera, 339 S.C. 417, 529 S.E.2d 710 (2000) (negligence elements and causation considerations)
- Bishop v. S.C. Dep’t of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 502 S.E.2d 78 (1998) (broad articulation of negligence elements and proximate cause)
- Epstein v. Coastal Timber Co., 393 S.C. 276, 711 S.E.2d 912 (2011) (rules of statutory construction in derogation of common law)
- Crosby v. Glasscock Trucking Co., 340 S.C. 626, 532 S.E.2d 856 (2000) (strict construction of statutory limitations on claims)