Green v. Medical University of South Carolina

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Louis Green, Jr.,       
Appellant,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-237

Submitted January 29, 2003 – Filed April
1, 2003  

AFFIRMED

Kernard Edward Redmond, of Florence, for Appellant.

Thomas J. Wills and Allen Leland Dupre, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Louis Green appeals the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Medical University of South
Carolina in this malpractice action.  Green argues the trial court erred by
concluding the statute of limitations had expired at the time the cause of action
was initiated.  We affirm [1]
pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Bayle v. South
Carolina Dept. of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 542 S.E.2d 736 (Ct. App. 2001)
(cert. denied, September 27, 2001) (holding that in cases brought under
the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, the statute of limitations begins to run
when a person of common knowledge and experience would be on notice that a loss
had occurred and not on the date a potential cause of the loss is discovered);
Dorman v. Campbell, 331 S.C. 179, 500 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating
the knowledge possessed by one’s attorney is imputed to that person); S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (Supp. 2002) (“[A]n action for damages under this chapter
may be instituted at any time within two years after the loss was or should
have been discovered.  Provided, that if a claim for damages was filed and disallowed
or rejected an action for damages filed under this chapter, based upon the same
occurrence as the claim, may be instituted within three years after the loss
was or should have been discovered.”); Rule 56, SCRCP (stating summary judgment
is properly granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
and admissions on file, together with any affidavits show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law).   

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CURETON and SHULER,
JJ., concur.

[1]   We affirm this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.