Case Overview

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.[1]

[1] 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 (5^th ed. 1979).

Case Briefs

Oral Arguments

View Oral Arguments
(53 minutes playing time)