South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina-Based Healthcare System Resolves False Claims Act Case with Feds After $237 Million Verdict

Published on: October 21, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The whistleblower provisions of the federal False Claims Act, codified at U.S.C.A. § 3729-3733, are based on the premise that those on the inside often have the best information about illegal acts and fraud. The Act has been around for a long time, having been enacted during the Civil War to combat fraud by suppliers of goods purchased by the Union during the war.

The Act has been amended several times over its 150 years of existence. In its current form, it provides for the filing of qui tam actions – lawsuits by private individuals suing on behalf of the government. Individuals filing lawsuits are called “relators” and can be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, if the suit is successful, via a share of the recovery obtained on the government’s behalf.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Decertifies Would-Be Class Action Lawsuit Against Insurance Companies – Smith v. Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company

Published on: October 9, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Class action lawsuits can be very useful in that they allow a large group of people with similar legal disputes to bring their claims in a single lawsuit, thus reducing litigation costs and encouraging judicial economy.

In order to proceed as a class, the would-be class representative(s) must obtain the permission of the court. In South Carolina state courts, a plaintiff must proceed under South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 23, which establishes the requirements for class certification.

According to Rule 23, a class action may proceed if the court finds that the class contains so many members that joinder would be impractical, there are common questions of law or fact, the plaintiff’s claims are representative, the plaintiff would fairly and adequately represent the class, and the amount in controversy is at least $100 per class member (unless injunctive or declaratory relief is sought).

South Carolina’s Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Was Not Tolled, Despite Alleged Victim’s Mental Incapacity – Sims v. Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.

Published on: September 18, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The importance of the statute of limitations – the deadline for filing a lawsuit – cannot be overemphasized. If a case is not filed in a timely fashion, there can be no recovery unless the circumstances fit into a very small number of exceptions.

In the recent case of Sims v. Amisub of South Carolina, the plaintiff was the duly appointed guardian and conservator of a ward who had allegedly been hurt as a result of the medical negligence of the defendant medical center and doctor in 2003. Unfortunately, the conservator’s suit was not filed until 2009.

$3 Million Verdict Against Unknown Trucker Affirmed by South Carolina Appellate Court – Tucker v. Doe

Published on: September 4, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you had a car accident due to the negligence of someone else but you had no way of identifying the negligent party? South Carolina law requires every motor vehicle owner to carry uninsured motorist (UM) insurance, which may allow you to file a lawsuit ostensibly against the “John Doe” who caused the accident, and, if the suit is successful, your UM carrier will be liable for the damages ultimately awarded by the courts (up to the amount of your policy limits).

In theory, this might sound a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel; after all, you and your insurance company are on the same side, right? Unfortunately, no, you are not. Proceedings against a UM carrier can be just as adversarial – sometimes, even more adversarial – than a run-of-the-mill lawsuit in which the actual defendant is known and present at trial. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Landowners’ Class Action Suit for Property Devaluation Should Not Have Been Dismissed – Chestnut v. AVX Corporation

Published on: August 28, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a class action lawsuit, the plaintiff attempts to seek justice against the defendant not only on his or her own behalf, but also on behalf of those similarly situated. Of course, it is up to the trial court to determine whether to certify the plaintiff’s suit as a class action and, if it does so, to decide exactly who is entitled to be part of the class.

Class action suits are important because they allow a large group of individuals to share litigation expenses in a suit that might not be viable if each plaintiff had to pay his or her own attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses.

In the case of Chestnut v. AVX Corporation, the plaintiffs were landowners who sued the defendant, an electronics manufacturer in the North Myrtle Beach area, on claims of nuisance, negligence, and strict liability arising from the manufacturer’s use of a degreasing chemical known as trichloroethylene (TCE). The manufacturer’s use of TCE began in 1980. In 1996, the manufacturer admitted to state authorities that it had violated certain state environmental laws and agreed to implement a clean-up plan.

$90,000 Jury Verdict in Favor of South Carolina Woman Whose Son Was Stillborn Affirmed on Appeal – Jamison v. Hilton

Published on: August 21, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

A stillbirth occurs when a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy. According to the March of Dimes, this tragic event happens in about one out of every 160 pregnancies in the United States. It can be caused by a number of factors, including birth defects, problems with the placenta, infections, umbilical cord issues, and chronic health conditions in the mother.

Sometimes, a stillbirth is not preventable. Other times, it may be possible to save the baby if appropriate measures are taken by the mother’s physicians and other medical personnel. A recent decision by the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a case in which a mother whose son was stillborn alleged that her doctors’ negligence caused her son’s death.

The Facts of the Case

In the case of Jamison v. Hilton, the plaintiff was a woman who delivered a stillborn infant via Caesarean section after the baby’s heart stopped beating at 32 weeks gestation. She sued two of her doctors and their obstetrical practice, claiming that her son’s death could have been prevented if they had complied with the applicable standard of care.

$237,454,195 Award in South Carolina Whistleblower’s Suit Brought under the Federal False Claims Act Affirmed on Appeal – Drakeford v. Tuomey

Published on: August 7, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The United States government is a huge entity that cannot possibly be aware of every instance of fraud of which it is a victim. To increase the odds in the government’s favor, Congress passed the False Claims Act, which contains a qui tam provision through which a whistleblower may initiate a lawsuit on the federal government’s behalf, seeking recovery for alleged fraud committed against the government. The federal government may or may not join in the suit at some point.

If the suit is ultimately successful, the whistleblower is awarded a percentage of the recovery. The possibility of this award serves as an incentive for those who are aware of potential fraud against the government to act on its behalf by filing suit under the False Claims Act. Some qui tam actions can be lengthy and complex, especially when large sums of money are at stake.

Plaintiffs in South Carolina Nursing Home Negligence Suit Entitled to Review of Trial Court’s Bifurcation of Corporate Defendants Prior to Trial – Morrow v. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC

Published on: July 24, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In injury litigation, sometimes there is but a single defendant – the driver of a car or the owner of a small business, perhaps. Other times, however, there are multiple defendants and multiple claims. A seemingly simple case can quickly get complex.

Defendants often resist being brought into a lawsuit and will avail themselves of every available opportunity to ask for a dismissal of the case against them. While a thorough accident attorney can spend countless hours researching a case so as not to omit a possible wrongdoer, it is ultimately up to the court to decide who stays and who goes.

Allen Charge to Jury in South Carolina Motorcycle/Heavy Equipment Accident Was Not Coercive – Johnson v. Sam English Grading, Inc.

Published on: July 10, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a perfect world, the evidence in a lawsuit would be so obviously convincing in favor of one party or the other that a jury would be able to reach a quick and unanimous verdict. In the real world, however, a case in which the evidence is so clearly in one party’s favor usually gets settled out of court.

As for the rest, the question sometimes arises as to what a judge should do after the jury has said they are deadlocked. In the landmark case of Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), the nation’s highest court approved, at least for the federal courts, a jury instruction advising jurors to listen to one another with a disposition towards being convinced of each other’s arguments.

Recently, the South Carolina Court of Appeals was called upon to consider whether an Allen charge was acceptable in a particular South Carolina state court case.

Subcontractor’s Employee Who Was Killed While Returning to South Carolina After Making a Delivery Was a Statutory Employer of an Upstream Contractor – Collins v. Seko Charlotte

Published on: June 15, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Workers’ compensation laws are supposed to simplify the process by which an injured worker, or the family of an employee killed in an on-the-job accident, receives monetary compensation. Of course, the actual ease of the process depends upon several factors, and some cases can be much more complicated than it would seem on the surface.

While factors such as extent of a worker’s disability or whether he or she can return to the pre-injury job are relatively common, other issues can arise. In the recent case of Collins v. Seko Charlotte, the issue was not the amount of compensation due but the pocket from which it would come.