Johnson v. Roberts

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Johnson v. Roberts

830 S.E.2d 910, 427 S.C. 258

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 2019

DocketAppellate Case 2018-000914; Opinion 27897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 830 S.E.2d 910 (Johnson v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Roberts, 830 S.E.2d 910, 427 S.C. 258 (S.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

JUSTICE HEARN :

**258 *911 Petitioners Dr. John Roberts and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) sought a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Johnson v. Roberts , 422 S.C. 406 , 812 S.E.2d 207 (Ct. App. 2018). 1 Respondent Clair Johnson filed a medical malpractice action alleging Roberts and MUSC negligently treated Johnson with electroconvulsive therapy. Roberts and MUSC moved for summary judgment, contending the six-year statute of repose 2 barred her claims, and the circuit court agreed, holding the repose period began on the first date of treatment. On appeal, the court of appeals **259 reversed, relying on its decision in Marshall v. Dodds 3 to hold that there was evidence to support Johnson's claim that Roberts and MUSC acted negligently within six years of filing her lawsuit. This Court recently affirmed as modified the court of appeals' Marshall decision, holding the statute of repose begins to run after each occurrence.

Roberts and MUSC now contend that the court of appeals erred in finding Johnson's claims preserved for review and in holding the statute of repose began after each occurrence. We disagree and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: (1) As to issue preservation, see Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis , 398 S.C. 323 , 330, 730 S.E.2d 282 , 285 (2012) ("While it may be good practice for us to reach the merits of an issue when error preservation is doubtful, we should follow our longstanding precedent and resolve the issue on preservation grounds when it clearly is unpreserved.") (emphasis added), and (2) As to the merits, we find the allegations of medical malpractice indistinguishable from those in Marshall .

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J. and FEW, J., concur. JAMES, J., dissenting in a separate opinion in which KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

JUSTICE JAMES :

I dissent based on my dissenting opinion in Marshall .

KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

1

For a full recitation of the facts, see the court of appeals' opinion.

2

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-545 (A) (2005).

3

417 S.C. 196 , 789 S.E.2d 88 (Ct. App. 2016), aff'd as modified , Op. No. 27873 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed March 27, 2019) (Shearouse Ad. Sh. No. 13 at 37 ), reh'g denied (May 30, 2019).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUSTICE HEARN :

**258 *911 Petitioners Dr. John Roberts and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) sought a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Johnson v. Roberts , 422 S.C. 406 , 812 S.E.2d 207 (Ct. App. 2018). 1 Respondent Clair Johnson filed a medical malpractice action alleging Roberts and MUSC negligently treated Johnson with electroconvulsive therapy. Roberts and MUSC moved for summary judgment, contending the six-year statute of repose 2 barred her claims, and the circuit court agreed, holding the repose period began on the first date of treatment. On appeal, the court of appeals **259 reversed, relying on its decision in Marshall v. Dodds 3 to hold that there was evidence to support Johnson's claim that Roberts and MUSC acted negligently within six years of filing her lawsuit. This Court recently affirmed as modified the court of appeals' Marshall decision, holding the statute of repose begins to run after each occurrence.

Roberts and MUSC now contend that the court of appeals erred in finding Johnson's claims preserved for review and in holding the statute of repose began after each occurrence. We disagree and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: (1) As to issue preservation, see Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis , 398 S.C. 323 , 330, 730 S.E.2d 282 , 285 (2012) ("While it may be good practice for us to reach the merits of an issue when error preservation is doubtful, we should follow our longstanding precedent and resolve the issue on preservation grounds when it clearly is unpreserved.") (emphasis added), and (2) As to the merits, we find the allegations of medical malpractice indistinguishable from those in Marshall .

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J. and FEW, J., concur. JAMES, J., dissenting in a separate opinion in which KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

JUSTICE JAMES :

I dissent based on my dissenting opinion in Marshall .

KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

1

For a full recitation of the facts, see the court of appeals' opinion.

2

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-545 (A) (2005).

3

417 S.C. 196 , 789 S.E.2d 88 (Ct. App. 2016), aff'd as modified , Op. No. 27873 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed March 27, 2019) (Shearouse Ad. Sh. No. 13 at 37 ), reh'g denied (May 30, 2019).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 S.E.2d 910, 427 S.C. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-roberts-sc-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack