McMaster v. Dewitt
767 S.E.2d 451
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- McMaster sued Dr. Dewitt and Carolina Psychiatric for Adderall overprescribing allegedly causing May 2008 psychosis and hospitalization.
- Suit filed June 16, 2011, within three-year window under SC statute of limitations for medical malpractice, or discovery rule.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment, holding the claim untimely as of May 2008 before discovery date, and excluded McMaster’s affidavit as a sham under Cothran.
- McMaster testified that in May 2008 Dr. Dewitt told him the psychosis was Adderall-induced and that he was overmedicated.
- May 2008 discharge suggested a substance/Adderall overuse link; June 2008 discharge cited medication-induced psychosis, but deposition still supported notice in May.
- On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment, upholding discovery-rule analysis and exclusion of the late-filed affidavit as a sham under Cothran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute begin to run under discovery rule? | McMaster contends later discovery reset the clock. | Dewitt/Carolina Psychiatric argue May 2008 notice started the period. | The statute began in May 2008; May hospitalization notice sufficed. |
| Was the May discharge summary material to notice? | Discharge wording created dispute about notice. | Not controlling; deposition showed notice in May. | Not controlling; May deposition established notice. |
| Was the sham-affidavit exclusion proper? | Affidavit should be considered to create factual issue. | Court properly excluded as sham per Cothran. | Yes; circuit court acted within its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210, 592 S.E.2d 629 (2004) (S.C. 2004) (affidavit-strike standard for sham affidavits; factors for distinguishing sham vs correcting affidavits)
- Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 608 S.E.2d 459 (Ct.App.2005) (S.C. Ct. App. 2005) (discovery rule and notice standard in medical malpractice)
- Dunbar v. Carlson, 341 S.C. 261, 533 S.E.2d 913 (Ct.App.2000) (S.C. Ct. App. 2000) (discovery rule framework for accrual)
- Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 744 S.E.2d 161 (2013) (S.C. 2013) (summary-judgment standard; evaluating genuine issues of material fact)
- Arant v. Kressler, 327 S.C. 225, 489 S.E.2d 206 (1997) (S.C. 1997) (discovery-rule accrual analysis)
- Benton v. Roger C. Peace Hosp., 313 S.C. 520, 443 S.E.2d 537 (1994) (S.C. 1994) (origin of discovery rule and accrual timing)