THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Charles Gary, Petitioner, 

v. 

Hattie M. Askew, Will Outlaw, and Deboria Outlaw, 

individually and d/b/a Low Country Medical Transport, 

Low Country Medical Transport, Inc., Eugene A. 

Kirkland, and American Medical Response, Inc. (d/b/a 

Access2Care), Defendants. 

Of Whom American Medical Response, Inc. (d/b/a 

Access2Care) is the Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2016-001937 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from Beaufort County 

Marvin H. Dukes III, Special Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27791 

Heard April 18, 2018 – Filed April 25, 2018 

VACATED AND REMANDED 

Joseph Dawson III, of North Charleston, for Petitioner. 

C. Mitchell Brown and Brian P. Crotty, both of Nelson, 

Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; and 
 

 

 

 

Robert H. Hood and Robert H. Hood, Jr., both of Hood 

Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner Charles Gary sought a writ of certiorari to review the 

court of appeals' decision in Gary v. Askew, 417 S.C. 232, 789 S.E.2d 94 (Ct. App. 

2016). Respondent American Medical Response, Inc. (Access2Care) contracted 

with the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to

administer Medicaid's Nonemergency Medical Transportation Program. Pursuant to 

its contract with DHHS, Access2Care served as broker, whereby it contracted with 

Low Country Medical Services, the entity that transported patients for 

nonemergency medical appointments. 

The underlying suit arose after Gary was injured in a collision while being

transported in an ambulance operated by Low Country Medical Services. Less than

three months after Access2Care filed its amended answer and without any 

meaningful discovery, Gary moved for summary judgment, arguing both public 

policy and the contract between Access2Care and DHHS imposed a nondelegable 

duty on Access2Care to ensure safe transportation of patients. The trial court granted 

summary judgment in favor of Gary, but the court of appeals reversed, holding 

Access2Care did not owe a nondelegable duty to safely transport Gary. 

Because the record contains minimal evidence about the nature of the collision and 

the parties have not had an opportunity to conduct significant discovery, we find 

summary judgment is premature. Helena Chem. Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. 

Co., 357 S.C. 631, 644, 594 S.E.2d 455, 462 (2004) ("[S]ince it is a drastic remedy, 

summary judgment should be cautiously invoked to ensure that a litigant is not 

improperly deprived of a trial on disputed factual issues."); Baird v. Charleston Cty., 

333 S.C. 519, 529, 511 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1999) ("[S]ummary judgment must not be 

granted until the opposing party has had a full and fair opportunity to complete

discovery."); Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 410 S.E.2d 537 (1991) 

(holding summary judgment was premature where the plaintiff did not have an

adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue of medical causation). 

Accordingly, we vacate the court of appeals' opinion and remand to the circuit court

for further proceedings.1

1

 We express no opinion as to the merits of Gary's nondelegable duty claim. 
VACATED AND REMANDED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JAMES, JJ. and Acting Justice Paul 

E. Short Jr., concur.