THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Charles Gary, Petitioner,

v.

Hattie M. Askew, Will Outla w, and Deboria Outlaw, individually and d/b/a Low Country Medical Transport, Low Country Medical Tra nsport, Inc., Eugene A. Kirkland, and American Medic al Response, Inc. (d/b/a Access2Care), Defendants.

Of Whom American Medic al Response, Inc. (d/b/a Access2Care) is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001937

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT O F 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 Ch arleston, for Petitioner.

C. Mitchell Brown and Brian P. Crotty, both of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough , LLP, of Columbia; andRobert H. Hood and Robert H. Hood, Jr., both of Hood Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner Charles Gary sought a w rit of certiorari to review t he 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 Progr am. Pursuant to its contract with DHHS, Access2Car e served as broker, whereby i t contracted with Low Country Medical Services, the entity that transported patie nts 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 Ser vices. 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 rev ersed, 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. Alli anz 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 judgmen t must not be granted until the opposing party has had a full and fair opport unity 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 medic al 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 P aul

E. Short Jr., concur.