Poston v. Brown

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS

PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(D)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

David Poston and Renee Poston, individually and as husband and wife, Appellants,

v.

Tod Brown, M. D., individually; Carolinas Hospital System; Carolinas Hospital System Pharmacy; John Doe I, an unknown Corporation and/or Professional Association, Defendants,

of whom Tod Brown, M. D. is the Respondent.

Appeal From Florence County

 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-188

Submitted April 2, 2007 – Filed April 24, 2007   

AFFIRMED

Henry Thad White, Jr., of Florence, for Appellants.

J. Boone Aiken, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:    David and Renee Poston brought suit against Dr. Tod Brown alleging medical malpractice.  The Postons appeal from the trial judges’ orders, alleging (1) the judge erred in admitting the testimony of Nurse Patrick Taylor and (2) the judge erred in excluding two expert witnesses from testifying at trial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and, on appeal, will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error prejudicing the defendant); Fields v. Reg’l Med. Ctr. Orangeburg, 363 S.C. 19, 26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) (“To warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury’s verdict was influenced by the challenged evidence or the lack thereof.”).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and STILWELL, JJ., concur.

[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.