Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson, 818 S.E.2d 758

Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. employed Dr. Hugh S. Thompson Jr.; he was on the federal Medicare/Medicaid excluded list during his employment, leading CMS to demand repayment of ~ $208,821 in overpayments.
After exhausting federal administrative appeals (which found Pee Dee at fault), Pee Dee sued Thompson’s estate in probate for reimbursement; the case was removed to circuit court and the complaint asserted 20 causes of action.
Circuit court disqualified Pee Dee’s attorney/CEO Tony Megna as a necessary witness, then granted summary judgment for Thompson’s estate on all claims; Pee Dee appealed and the court of appeals (and this Court by denial of certiorari) affirmed; remittitur issued Jan. 7, 2014.
On Jan. 16, 2014 (nine days after remittitur), Thompson’s estate moved for sanctions under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act (FCPSA) and Rule 11, alleging Pee Dee and Megna pursued meritless claims and engaged in sanctionable conduct that occurred before the appeal.
The circuit court imposed Rule 11 sanctions (about $34,150); it denied FCPSA sanctions as untimely. The court of appeals affirmed denial under the FCPSA and reversed the Rule 11 sanctions only on timeliness grounds; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under FCPSA	Motion timely because prevailing party may move after judgment	Motion untimely because must be filed within ten days of entry of judgment	FCPSA motion untimely (affirmed)
Timeliness under Rule 11	Motion timely filed post-remittitur to avoid exacerbating litigation and because appeals affected sanctions grounds	Motion untimely; should be subject to same 10-day limit as FCPSA	No fixed statutory limit; Rule 11 motion governed by a "reasonable time" standard; circuit court did not abuse discretion in finding timely (reversed court of appeals and remanded on merits)
Circuit court jurisdiction post-remittitur	Court retains jurisdiction to enforce judgment and act consistent with appellate rulings, including Rule 11 motions	If motion is untimely court lacks jurisdiction to consider it	Circuit court retained jurisdiction to hear the Rule 11 motion filed nine days after remittitur
Standard of review for timeliness/sanctions	Deferential review to circuit court's equitable judgment and factual findings	Appellate court can review reasonableness independently	Timing and sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion; court of appeals erred by substituting its own reasonableness analysis for trial court's discretion

Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 370 S.C. 5, 633 S.E.2d 722 (S.C. 2006) (interprets FCPSA timing and discusses Rule 11 timing question)
Hicks v. S. Md. Health Sys. Agency, 805 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1986) (federal court retained jurisdiction to consider Rule 11 motion after appeal; equitable considerations govern timing)
In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505 (4th Cir. 1990) (Rule 11 primary purpose is deterrence; timing governed by equitable considerations)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (discusses expectations about timing of Rule 11 sanctions and post-appeal limitations)
Ex parte Gregory, 378 S.C. 430, 663 S.E.2d 46 (S.C. 2008) (standard of review for imposition of sanctions is abuse of discretion)