Browning Ex Rel. Estate of Browning v. Hartvigsen
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Harwell, Justice:
The question presented is whether the trial judge erred in holding that certain provisions of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (the Act), which commenced providing qualified and limited liability to government employed physicians on January 1, 1989, do not apply in any respect to this action. We affirm.
I. FACTS
Respondent alleges that appellants Erik Hartvigsen and Charles R. Vernon, both government employed physicians, harmed Minnie Ruth Browning when they attempted to insert a Shaldon catheter into Mrs. Browning’s right sub-clavian vein in her neck. She suffered a stroke…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Caughman v. Columbia Y. M. C. A.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
- Jenkins v. MearesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Multi-Cinema, Ltd. v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- South Carolina Department of Social Services v. ForresterCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- Searcy v. South Carolina Department of EducationCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991
3Cited by56 opinions
- Whiteside v. Cherokee County School District No. OneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- State v. SweatSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
- Sloan v. South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy ExaminersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Langley v. PierceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Williams v. Town of Hilton Head IslandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.