Durham v. Vinson, 360 S.C. 639

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed a medical malpractice judgment involving alleged surgical negligence, evidence concerning a physician's hospital privileging file, the jury charge on the medical standard of care, and punitive damages. The court held that errors concerning the privileging file and jury charge were harmless, but admission of evidence that the physician prescribed Valium to the patient's daughter was improper under Rule 403, SCRE. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new punitive damages phase.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred by allowing Durham's counsel to question Dr. Vinson before the jury about his failure to disclose portions of his confidential hospital privileging file and to argue that nondisclosure showed concealment, because the statute did not require disclosure and such use undermined the statutory confidentiality policy. The error was harmless in light of other evidence of deceit and the overwhelming evidence of liability.
2. A medical-malpractice standard-of-care instruction may include both the physician's professional skill and professional learning, but a physician's lack or inadequacy of knowledge alone cannot establish malpractice. The challenged portion of the instruction was erroneous, but the error was harmless because the physician's treatment constituted an uncontradicted gross breach of the standard of care.
3. The trial court abused its discretion under Rule 403, SCRE, by admitting evidence that Dr. Vinson prescribed Valium to Durham's daughter and instructed her to distribute it to relatives. The evidence concerned alleged misconduct toward a third party, was only attenuatedly relevant to concealment, and was unfairly prejudicial; the error required a new punitive-damages phase.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing questioning and closing argument concerning Dr. Vinson's failure to disclose portions of his hospital privileging file.
2. Whether the jury charge improperly stated the medical-malpractice standard of care by permitting liability based solely on a physician's lack of professional learning.
3. Whether evidence that Dr. Vinson prescribed Valium to Durham's daughter and told her to distribute it to family members was admissible during the punitive-damages phase.
4. Whether the remaining preserved and unpreserved appellate issues warranted relief.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded