THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Louis Green, Jr.,        Appellant,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina,        Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-237
Submitted January 29, 2003 – Filed April 1, 2003  


AFFIRMED


Kernard Edward Redmond, of Florence, for Appellant.

Thomas J. Wills and Allen Leland Dupre, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Louis Green appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Medical University of South Carolina in this malpractice action.  Green argues the trial court erred by concluding the statute of limitations had expired at the time the cause of action was initiated.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Bayle v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 542 S.E.2d 736 (Ct. App. 2001) (cert. denied, September 27, 2001) (holding that in cases brought under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, the statute of limitations begins to run when a person of common knowledge and experience would be on notice that a loss had occurred and not on the date a potential cause of the loss is discovered); Dorman v. Campbell, 331 S.C. 179, 500 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating the knowledge possessed by one’s attorney is imputed to that person); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (Supp. 2002) (“[A]n action for damages under this chapter may be instituted at any time within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered.  Provided, that if a claim for damages was filed and disallowed or rejected an action for damages filed under this chapter, based upon the same occurrence as the claim, may be instituted within three years after the loss was or should have been discovered.”); Rule 56, SCRCP (stating summary judgment is properly granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law).   

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CURETON and SHULER, JJ., concur.


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