Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-015 - Fickens v. MUSC

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

George Wilford Fickens, Appellant,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina, Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2012-UP-015
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012


AFFIRMED


George Wilford Fickens, pro se.

Robin L. Jackson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  George Wilford Fickens appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), arguing the circuit court erred because an issue of fact existed about whether MUSC committed gross negligence when its employee drew a sample of his blood in violation of hospital policy and South Carolina law.  Moreover, Fickens contends the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Fickens's motion for the appointment of a GAL: Rule 17(c), SCRCP ("[For a] person imprisoned . . . in this State, and not a minor or incompetent, the [circuit] court may, in its discretion appoint a [GAL]."); Gossett v. Gilliam, 317 S.C. 82, 85, 452 S.E.2d 6, 8 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The [circuit] court should evaluate whether a [GAL] is essential for the protection of the [in-state prisoner's] rights under the particular circumstances of the pending action.").

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in granting MUSC's motion for summary judgment: Ex parte Bland, 380 S.C. 1, 12-13, 667 S.E.2d 540, 546 (2008) (holding an argument on appeal that "differs significantly" from the theory of the case presented to the circuit court is unpreserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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