Peltier v. Metts

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

Brian E. Peltier, Appellant,

v.

Jobe C. Metts, M.D., Florida Medical Development, Inc., Tenet South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a
East Copper Regional Medical Center, University Medical Associates of the
Medical University of South Carolina, Carolina Specialty Care, Inc., Carolina
Specialty Care Physicians, P.A., Defendants,

of whom Jobe C. Metts, M.D. is the Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

 J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-317

Heard June 5, 2007 – Filed June 14, 2007   

AFFIRMED

Brian E. Peltier, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Sandra J. Senn and Robin L. Jackson, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brian
Peltier appeals the circuit court’s order granting Dr. Jobe Metts’ motion to
dismiss because Peltier failed to comply with the two-year statute of
limitations under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.  See S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005).  We affirm.

On
September 25, 2002, Dr. Metts performed a lithotripsy procedure on Peltier.  At
the time, Dr. Metts worked at a satellite urology clinic for the Medical
University of South Carolina (“MUSC”).  On September 25, 2005, Peltier brought
this action against Dr. Metts, among others, alleging Dr. Metts negligently
performed the lithotripsy procedure.  Dr. Metts moved the circuit court to
dismiss Peltier’s action against him because it exceeded the two-year statute
of limitations under the Tort Claims Act.  The circuit court agreed, and
dismissed Peltier’s action.  Peltier appeals.

On
appeal, Peltier argues the circuit court erred in dismissing his action for
failing to file and serve it within the applicable statute of limitations. 
Peltier also asserts the circuit court erred in refusing to allow him to
proceed to discovery.  While we recognize Peltier’s position, the record
establishes to the exacting summary judgment standard that Dr. Metts worked for
MUSC, a government entity under the Tort Claims Act.  S.C. Code Ann. §
15-78-30(d) (2005); Tatum v. Med. Univ. of S.C., 346 S.C. 194, 199, 552
S.E.2d 18, 21 (2001) (“MUSC is a governmental agency subject to the provisions
of the Tort Claims Act.”).  Accordingly, absent a verified claim—which Peltier
did not file—Peltier had two years to bring his action against MUSC.  S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-110; see also Joubert v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 341
S.C. 176, 186, 534 S.E.2d 1, 6 (Ct. App. 2000).  Because Peltier exceeded this
two year limitation, his action is time-barred.[1] 
Therefore, the circuit court did not err.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., KITTREDGE, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1]  Because we decide this case based on the applicable statute
of limitations, we decline to address Peltier’s remaining assignments of error.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting that an appellate court need not
address the remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive).