Linog v. Yampolsky
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Toal
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents Dr. Mark Yampolsky and Dr. Eloise Bradham as to Appellant Nitus Linog’s (“Appellant”) claim for medical battery. Appellant based her claim on her purported revocation of consent to a dental procedure during the surgery and while under anesthesia. The trial court found no South Carolina precedent recognizing medical battery based on withdrawal of consent, but ruled that even if South Carolina law permitted such a cause of action, Appellant failed to provide any expert testimony. Because we hold that no cause of action…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Koester v. Carolina Rental Center, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
- David v. McLeod Regional Medical CenterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Hook Ex Rel. Estate of Summers v. RothsteinCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Insurance Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. FerrySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Houck v. State Farm Fire & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dawkins v. Union Hospital DistrictSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
- Yoder v. CottonNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
- Melton v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2010
- Dickerson v. TLC Laser Eye Center Institute, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
- Severance v. HoweNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.