891 S.E.2d 682
S.C. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Five-week-old Robert Lee M., Jr. was admitted to Regional Medical Center for fever; nurse Jamie Downing administered IV ampicillin on Oct. 28, 2014, which infiltrated and caused a severe burn to the infant's hand.
- Mother Tekayah Hamilton sued Regional under the Tort Claims Act for medical negligence; Downing (the individual nurse) was later dismissed under the Act.
- Key trial disputes: qualification of Hamilton's nursing expert (Monica Stobbs) to opine on pediatric IV standards; admission of photographs of the injured hand; whether Regional's expert could testify that Regional was negligent/grossly negligent; and the publication to the jury of Requests for Admission concerning whether damages exceeded $100,000.
- The jury found Regional grossly negligent, awarded $1,127,280 to Minor and $135,477 to Hamilton; the trial court reduced Minor's award to the $300,000 Tort Claims Act cap and denied other post-trial relief.
- Regional appealed arguing errors in expert qualification, evidentiary rulings (photographs and published admissions), exclusion of its expert on legal-conclusion testimony, and that the verdict was excessive; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification of nursing expert to testify on pediatric IV care | Stobbs may testify as a nursing expert; IV administration/monitoring is the same for adults and pediatrics | Stobbs lacked pediatric IV experience and relevant literature; not qualified under Rule 702 | Trial court did not abuse discretion: qualification is relative; lack of pediatric-specific experience goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Directed verdict / JNOV on gross negligence standard (governmental defendant) | Hamilton presented evidence (policy violation, lack of flush documentation, testimony) sufficient to submit gross negligence to jury | Regional: plaintiff failed to prove gross negligence (required against gov't), so directed verdict/JNOV should have been granted | Denial affirmed: reasonable inferences supported submission to jury; gross negligence is fact question here |
| Admissibility of photographs of Minor's injured hand | Photographs corroborate testimony and show scope/impact of injury on an infant | Photographs were gruesome, inflammatory, and not reflective of current healed state; overly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admission affirmed: probative value in corroborating injury and showing its effect on infant outweighed risk of unfair prejudice |
| Defendant expert asked whether hospital was negligent/grossly negligent | Hamilton: such questions seek legal conclusions; expert not qualified to state law | Regional: expert should be allowed to state opinion based on nursing experience about negligence/gross negligence | Exclusion affirmed: experts may not give legal conclusions on negligence/gross negligence; such testimony risks confusing jury |
| Publishing Requests for Admission re: amount in controversy to jury | Hamilton: proper to read request and admissions to jury; Rule 36 answers are judicial admissions and may be published | Regional: publication prejudiced jury and functioned like a stipulation forcing a minimum award; requests were discovery, not stipulations | Publication affirmed: Rule 36 admissions bind party and may be published; trial court instructed jury to weigh evidence and determine damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 487 S.E.2d 596 (S.C. 1997) (an expert need not be a specialist in the defendant’s exact field; qualifications are relative)
- Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 699 S.E.2d 169 (S.C. 2010) (trial court should take a broad inquiry into expert qualifications; admission is discretionary)
- Graves v. CAS Med. Sys., Inc., 401 S.C. 63, 735 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 2012) (Rule 702 requires that expert testimony assist the trier of fact; qualification and admissibility are discretionary)
- McMillan v. Durant, 312 S.C. 200, 439 S.E.2d 829 (S.C. 1993) (expert not being in same profession affects weight, not admissibility; court will not lightly exclude)
- Creed v. City of Columbia, 310 S.C. 342, 426 S.E.2d 785 (S.C. 1993) (a general practitioner may testify on issues outside a narrow specialty when qualified by experience)
- Holmes v. Black River Elec. Coop., Inc., 274 S.C. 252, 262 S.E.2d 875 (S.C. 1980) (gruesome photographs admissible when they corroborate testimony and aid jury’s evaluation of injuries)
- Tuomey Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. McIntosh, 315 S.C. 189, 432 S.E.2d 485 (S.C. 1993) (answers to requests for admission may be published to the jury; jury may consider initial and amended answers)