Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-12-2024

Case Style:

Malcolm E. Livingston, Jr. v. The Regional Medical Center of Orangeburg and Calhoun Counties

Case Number:

Judge: Edgard W. Dickson

Court: Circuit Court, Orangeburg County, South Carolina

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best * Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney: Marion Clyde Fairey, Jr. and Clyde C. Dean, Jr.

Description:


Orangeburg, South Carolina personal injury medical malpractice lawyer represented the Plaintiff.



On August 12, 2016, seventy-two-year-old Rebecca Livingston was involved in an automobile accident and transported to the Emergency Department (ER) at Regional Medical. Although there was a licensed physician present in the ER that day, physician's assistant Michael Carothers managed Livingston's care. Carothers discharged Livingston after evaluating and treating her.

In the early morning hours of August 13, 2016, Livingston returned to the Regional Medical ER because she could not move her legs. A licensed physician found Livingston was suffering from a spinal hematoma and had her transported to the nearest Level I Trauma Center. By the time she arrived, Livingston had lost all sensation below her T-8 vertebra. She was later diagnosed with paraplegia, secondary to spinal cord injury. Twenty months later, Livingston died due to complications related to her paraplegia.

Husband brought wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium actions against Regional Medical, alleging Regional Medical's failure to diagnose and timely treat Livingston's spinal hematoma caused her paralysis and led to her death.

Regional Medical denied Husband's allegations and asserted its employees acted within the applicable standard of care in treating Livingston. As an affirmative defense, Regional Medical noted its status as a governmental entity entitled to all protection afforded by the Tort Claims Act. Specifically, Regional Medical claimed that because Livingston's care was provided solely by a licensed PA, rather than a licensed physician, the TCA capped its liability at $300,000/600,000.

Husband moved for partial summary judgment, asserting Regional Medical could not avoid the higher physician liability cap simply because it chose to staff its ER with a PA who managed Livingston's care. As part of this argument, Husband asserted a supervising physician is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a PA.

Following a hearing, the circuit court granted partial summary judgment, finding:

The [PA] Act clearly and unambiguously establishes an agency relationship between a supervising physician and a physician's assistant. A physician assistant cannot practice unless a supervising physician has accepted responsibility for the medical services rendered by the physician assistant. Where an agency relationship exists, the principal is independently responsible for the acts and omissions of the agent. Accordingly, [Regional Medical's] supervising physician on duty on August 12, 2016 is responsible for the medical care Ms. Livingston received and [Regional Medical] cannot reduce its liability cap by claiming that the acts and omissions that injured Ms. Livingston were conducted by a physician's assistant rather than a licensed physician. The very authority that permits a physician assistant to practice in [Regional Medical's] emergency room requires that he or she only do so as the agent of a supervising physician who [has] accepted responsibility for the medical services rendered. Because the supervising physician is liable for the acts and omissions committed by his agent, under the plain terms of the TCA, the $1,200,000.00 liability cap is applicable to this case.

The circuit court's denied Regional Medical's Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, and Regional Medical timely appealed.
Livingston v. The Regional Med. Ctr. of Orangeburg & Calhoun Counties, 2024-UP-311 (S.C. App. Sep 11, 2024)

Outcome:
As the question of the applicable liability cap remains contingent upon the return of a verdict exceeding the Tort Claims Act's $300,000/600,000 liability caps, we reverse the circuit court's order granting partial summary judgment and remand this matter to the circuit court.

Reversed and remanded.

Livingston v. The Reg'l Med. Ctr. of Orangeburg & Calhoun Counties, 2024-UP-311 (S.C. App. Sep 11, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: