Windham v. McLeod Regional Medical Center

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Betty Windham & William K. Windham,       
Appellants,

v.

McLeod Regional Medical Center of the Pee
Dee, Inc.,        Respondent.

Appeal From Florence County

James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-394

Submitted June 9, 2003 – Filed June
12, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chalmers Carey Johnson, of Charleston, for Appellants.

Teresat A. Arnold, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   Affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to all
issues: Murray v. Bank of America, N.A., ___ S.C. ___, ___, 580 S.E.2d
194, ___ (Ct. App. 2003) (“The trial court’s decision to deny a motion for new
trial absolute is within its discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse
of discretion.”); Pike v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 234, 540
S.E.2d 87, 92 (2000) (“It is well settled that the admission and rejection of
testimony is largely within the trial court’s sound discretion.”); Hoeffner
v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361, 365, 429 S.E.2d 190, 192 (1993) (“Absent a
clear abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law, the trial judge’s ruling
on the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.”); Bishop v.
S.C. Dep’t of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88, 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) (“To
establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be
proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that
duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting
from the breach of duty.” (emphasis added)); Carver v. Medical Soc. of S.C.,
286 S.C. 347, 350, 334 S.E.2d 125, 127 (Ct. App. 1985) (“Proof of proximate
cause must [] be established by expert testimony where either the origin of
the injury is obscure and not readily apparent to a layperson or where there
are several equally probable causes of the condition.”); Armstrong v. Weiland,
267 S.C. 12, 16, 225 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1976) (holding when the plaintiff offers
no expert testimony to prove proximate cause, the plaintiff must offer evidence
that “rises above mere speculation or conjecture”).

AFFIRMED.1

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, Acting Judge,
concur.

1
Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal,
we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.