Cammer v. Ferguson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR
RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2),
SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

John R. Cammer, Jr., Personal Representative of the Estate of
John R. Cammer, Sr., Appellant,

v.

Thomas B. Ferguson, Jr., M.D., Respondent.     

Appeal From Charleston County

Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-366

Heard May 13, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009

AFFIRMED

Justin
S. Kahn, and Ellis I. Kahn, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Molly
H. Craig, Robert H. Hood, and Jennifer F. Nutter, all of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  In
this medical malpractice action, John R. Cammer, Jr. asserts the trial court
erred in finding Dr. Thomas B. Ferguson, Jr. was an employee of a charitable
organization and entitled to the protections under Section 33-56-180(A) of the
South Carolina Code (2006).[1] 
Cammer further asserts the trial court abused its discretion in excluding
certain expert testimony and in limiting cross examination concerning Dr.
Ferguson's credibility and qualifications.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Todd's Ice Cream, Inc. v. S.C.
Employment Sec. Comm'n, 281 S.C. 254, 259, 315 S.E.2d 373, 376 (Ct. App.
1984) ("Where the evidence relating to whether an individual is an
independent contractor or employee is conflicting or where more than one
inference can be derived therefrom, the question is one of fact."); Townes
Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775
(1976) (stating questions of fact in law actions are subject to review under
the any evidence standard); Gamble v. Int'l Paper Realty Corp. of South
Carolina, 323 S.C. 367, 373, 474 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1996) (the admission or
exclusion of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse); Rule 403, SCRE (allowing
exclusion of evidence where its probative value is outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] The parties
consented to the resolution of this issue by the trial judge rather than the
jury.