Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-211 - Rodgers v. Upstate Carolina Medical Center

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Cora Jean Rodgers, Appellant,

v.

Upstate Carolina Medical Center and Helen Spencer, Respondents.


Appeal From Cherokee County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-211
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed March 15, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant.

William O. Sweeny, III, and Martin S. Driggers, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Cora Jean Rodgers appeals the trial court's failure to grant her directed verdicts on her medical negligence and medical battery causes of action arising out of her treatment at Upstate Carolina Medical Center (Upstate Carolina) after which she experienced a ruptured uterus and underwent a hysterectomy.  She further appeals the trial court's failure to charge the jury on the issues of negligence and medical abandonment.  Additionally, she appeals the trial court's grant of Upstate Carolina's motion for a directed verdict on her negligence cause of action.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Rodgers a directed verdict on her medical battery cause of action: Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review."); see also Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 99, 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue is abandoned on appeal when it is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short, conclusory statement).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the issue of negligence: Glasscock, Inc., 348 S.C. at 81, 557 S.E.2d at 691 ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review."); Sierra v. Skelton, 307 S.C. 217, 224, 414 S.E.2d 169, 174 (Ct. App. 1992) ("[A] party may not assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict by distinctly stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection.").

3.  As to whether the trial court erred in granting Upstate Carolina's motion for a directed verdict on the medical negligence cause of action: Glasscock, Inc., 348 S.C. at 81, 557 S.E.2d at 691 ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review.").

4.  As to whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Rodgers a directed verdict on her medical negligence cause of action: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).

5.  As to whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the issue of medical abandonment: Greenville Mem'l Auditorium v. Martin, 301 S.C. 242, 246, 391 S.E.2d 546, 548 (1990) (holding an appellate court will not review the failure to give a requested jury charge when the request to charge does not appear on the record).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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