|Case of the Month|
Nitus Joanne Linog, Appellant, v. Mark Yampolsky, DDS
and Eloise Bradham, MD, Respondents.
Ms. Linog filed
this lawsuit in the circuit court in Charleston against a dentist (Dr.
Yampolsky) and anesthesiologist (Dr. Bradham) for malpractice and for medical
battery. The doctors made a motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(c) of the
South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states that summary judgment should be
granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party who made the summary
judgment motion is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The circuit
court judge granted summary judgment to the doctors on both claims because Ms.
Linog had not provided an expert’s opinion on the claims. Because summary
judgment was granted to the doctors, the case did not proceed to trial. Ms.
Linog filed a notice of appeal in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The
appeal was transferred to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Ms. Linog now
argues the circuit court judge erred in granting summary judgment to the
doctors on the medical battery claim. The South Carolina Medical Association
has filed an amicus curiae (“Friend of the Court”) brief on the issue of
whether South Carolina recognizes a cause of action for medical battery based
on revocation of informed consent by a patient while under the influence of
mind altering anesthesia.
 An amicus curiae brief is filed by a party who has a strong interest in or views on the issues or subject matter before the Court. Black’s Law Dictionary 75 (5th ed. 1979).
|Amicus Brief||Final Brief of Respondents|
View Oral Arguments
(53 minutes playing time)