Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A South Carolina appellate court held that a trial court had erred in part when it granted a directed verdict for the defense in a dermatological negligence suit alleging improper discharge instructions and other claims.

Michael Chalfant underwent Mohs surgery performed by dermatologist Mark Blaskis. That night, Chalfant was oozing blood from underneath his bandage. His wife called the number on the post-operative instruction sheet, dialed an extension, and left a message, which was not immediately returned. Early the next morning, Chalfant was transported to a hospital, where he died of blood loss.

Chalfant’s wife, individually and as his personal representative, filed suit against Blaskis and Carolinas Dermatology Group, P.A., alleging medical negligence, wrongful death, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to provide adequate post-surgical instructions regarding bleeding and that the physician’s office had an inadequate after-hours phone prompt system.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defense moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion.

Reversing in part and affirming in part, the appellate court found that the trial court had properly granted a directed verdict on the plaintiff’s allegations of improper telephone discharge instructions because no expert testified that the defendants had breached the standard of care. The plaintiff’s assertion that the defendants’ phone messaging system was inadequate is an issue not within the ambit of common knowledge, the court said, adding that there was testimony at trial from multiple doctors describing different uses of phone messaging systems after surgery.

The court found that the trial court had erred in granting a directed verdict on the issue of whether the defendant had negligently failed to educate Chalfant on the risk of bleeding after surgery. This is a question for the jury, the court said, noting that whether a duty has been breached does not turn merely on an expert witness’s words. There also was sufficient evidence in the record to submit the issue of proximate cause to the jury, the court said. A jury, the court reasoned, could have reasonably inferred a causal link between the physician’s alleged failure to warn of the risks of bleeding and Chalfant’s subsequent death from blood loss.

Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling on the adequacy of Blaskis’s post-surgical instructions on bleeding.

Citation: Chalfant v. Carolinas Dermatology Grp., P.A., 2023 WL 2904636 (S.C. Ct. App. May 24, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: William T. Geddings Jr., Manning, S.C.; and Michael G. Fink, Fort Meyers, Fla.