Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-190 - Hartzler v. Hartzler

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

Edwin Kerrison Hartzler, Appellant,

v.

David L. Hartzler, Reverend Ray Waldon, State of South Carolina, Thomas Scott, M.D., Renee S. Kohanski, M.D., Robert Milling, M.D., Martha Scott, Stephen A. Young, M.D., Luan Malkasian, Kenneth Picket, Richard L. Frierson, M.D., Ed Corales, M.D., Dafferlin Barnard-Dupree, M.D., Strom Thurmond, Defendants,

Of whom David L. Hartzler, Reverend Ray Waldon, Thomas Scott, M.D., Renee S. Kohanski, M.D., Robert Milling, M.D., Martha Scott, Stephen A. Young, M.D., Luan Malkasian, Kenneth Picket, Richard L. Frierson, M.D., Ed Corales, M.D., and Dafferlin Barnard-Dupree, M.D., are the, Respondents.


Appeal From Richland County
 James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-190
Submitted April 2, 2007 – Filed April 26, 2007


AFFIRMED


Edwin K. Hartzler, of Columbia, pro se.

Daniel R. Settana, Jr. and J. Eric Kaufman, both of Columbia, David L. Hartzler, of Camden, John F. Martin and Robin L. Jackson, both of Charleston, for Respondents.

Moultrie D. Roberts, of Columbia, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  We affirm[1] this appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Lawson v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 340 S.C. 346, 532 S.E.2d 259 (2000) (civil conspiracy requires a showing that two or more parties joined for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, thereby causing special damages); Pederson v. Gould, 288 S.C. 141, 143-44, 341 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1986) (plaintiff must demonstrate standard of care and deviation from that standard through expert testimony in order to prevail in medical malpractice action); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and GOOLSBY and STILWELL, JJ., concur.


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