THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Court of Appeals 

Mark Green, as Personal Representative of The Estate of 

Randall M. Green and Ann Green, Respondent, 

v. 

Wayne B. Bauerle, M.D. and Wayne B. Bauerle M.D., 

P.C., Appellants. 

Appellate Case No. 2020-000046 

Appeal From Horry County 

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 6029 

Heard December 6, 2022 – Filed October 4, 2023 

AFFIRMED 

John B. McCutcheon, Jr., of Thompson & Henry, PA, of 

Conway; Lisa Arlene Thomas, of Richardson Plowden & 

Robinson, PA, of Myrtle Beach; and Andrew F. 

Lindemann, of Lindemann Law Firm, P.A., of Columbia, 

all for Appellants. 

L. Morgan Martin, of Law Offices of L. Morgan Martin, 

P.A., of Conway; O. Grady Query, of Query Sautter & 

Associates, LLC, of Charleston; and Cristin Ann 

Uricchio, of Uricchio Law Firm, of Charleston, all for 

Respondent. 
MCDONALD, J.: This is the second round of appeals from the circuit court's 

order allocating the setoffs to which the non-settling defendants are entitled in this 

tragic case. Following the supreme court's reversal and remand of the circuit 

court's 80/20 allocation, Wayne B. Bauerle, M.D. and Wayne B. Bauerle, M.D., 

P.C. (collectively, Dr. Bauerle) have now appealed the circuit court's order equally 

allocating a prior settlement to set off the jury verdicts returned for Ann and 

Randall "Randy" Green (the Greens). Dr. Bauerle argues the circuit court erred in 

(1) finding the Greens intended that their settlement with Grand Strand Regional 

Medical Center (Grand Strand) be allocated equally between them; (2) calculating 

Mrs. Green's loss of consortium damages in a manner that exceeded the jury's 

verdict in order to find the Greens' proposed allocation did not result in a double 

recovery; (3) failing to treat the verdicts and settlement proceeds as marital or joint 

property; and (4) failing to apply controlling precedent. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

On April 17, 2004, the Greens were involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by 

the negligence of another driver. The Greens sustained serious bodily injuries and 

were transported to Grand Strand for treatment. Mr. Green's injuries included a 

fractured and dislocated right hip, as well as a severe laceration to his right arm 

that transected the muscle, nerves, and two arteries. 

Dr. Bauerle, the on-call orthopedic surgeon, responded to the emergency room to 

treat Mr. Green's injured hip. Although Dr. Bauerle was told that the ER physician 

had already reduced the hip, he requested a CT scan to ensure the reduction was 

proper and check for bone fragments that might require immediate surgery. He did 

so despite the fact that Mr. Green was in the holding area for the operating room 

waiting to undergo surgery to repair his lacerated forearm.1

 Following the CT 

scan, Mr. Green went into cardiac arrest. Although Mr. Green was successfully 

resuscitated, he sustained permanent damage to his spinal cord and was paralyzed 

 

1

 Experts testified it was a "dramatic" deviation from the standard of care to take a 

"totally unstable" patient out of pre-op where his vital signs were being closely 

monitored and controlled by an anesthesiologist who could prevent and stop a 

cardiac arrest. Dr. Bauerle conceded he would not have removed Mr. Green for 

the scan had he been aware of his instability. Dr. Bauerle's own expert agreed Dr. 

Bauerle should have checked Mr. Green's vital signs and chart; he further admitted 

no doctor should issue orders without confirming a patient's condition. 
from the waist down. Carolinas Medical Response (CMR) later transported Mr. 

Green to the Medical University of South Carolina. 

The Greens settled with the at-fault driver's liability carrier and their underinsured 

motorist (UIM) carrier.2

 They also brought suit against Grand Strand, Dr. Bauerle, 

and CMR for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. The Greens eventually 

settled or dismissed their claims against all defendants except Dr. Bauerle.3

 

A jury subsequently awarded Mr. Green $2.3 million on his medical malpractice 

claim and Mrs. Green $550,000 for loss of consortium. Dr. Bauerle filed a motion 

for setoff, which the circuit court granted, but only as to the proceeds of the 

Greens' settlements with Grand Strand and CMS. Because the Greens and the 

settling defendants did not specifically allocate the $2.025 million in settlement 

proceeds, the circuit court allocated the settlements based on the jury's distribution 

of the actual damages awarded: 

[T]he jury found for Mr. and Mrs. Green for a combined 

verdict of $2.85 million against the Defendants. The jury 

awarded Mr. Green $2.3 million of the total $2.85 

million verdict, or 80.70% of the total verdict. The jury 

awarded Mrs. Green $550,000 or 19.30% of the total 

verdict. Using that very allocation, this Court rules that 

the $2 million settlement with Grand Strand shall off set 

the verdict for Mr. Green in the amount of $1,614,035.09 

and the verdict for Mrs. Green in the amount of 

$385,694.91. Likewise, the settlement between Plaintiffs 

and [CMR] shall off set the verdict for Mr. Green in the 

amount of $20,175.44 and the verdict for Mrs. Green in 

the amount of $4,824.56.4

 

 

2

 Mr. Green settled with the at-fault driver for $100,000, and received $150,000 in 

the settlement of his UIM claim. Mrs. Green settled with the at-fault driver for 

$100,000, and received $75,000 in the settlement of her UIM claim. 

3

 Grand Strand settled all claims with the Greens for $2,000,000; CMR settled for 

$25,000. 

4

 In 2014, Dr. Bauerle's insurer made an initial payment of $415,789.47 in partial 

satisfaction of Mr. Green's judgment. The remaining judgments include awards of 

$250,000.00 to Mr. Green and $159,480.53 to Mrs. Green. 
The Greens and Dr. Bauerle filed cross-appeals.5

 Green v. Bauerle, Op. No. 

2016-UP-052 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 3, 2016). The Greens argued the circuit 

court erred in (1) finding section 15-38-50 of the South Carolina Code (2005 and 

Supp. 2022) mandated setoff; (2) finding it necessary to set off the entire amounts 

paid by Grand Strand and CMS; and (3) allocating the Grand Strand and CMS 

settlement proceeds between the Greens' claims. Id. at 2. In the cross-appeal, Dr. 

Bauerle argued the circuit court erred in denying setoff as to the funds paid by the 

at-fault driver and the Greens' UIM carrier. Id. This court affirmed the circuit 

court's order in an unpublished opinion. Id. at 2–3. 

After granting the cross-petitions for writs of certiorari, our supreme court found 

"the jury verdicts are not subject to setoff by the settlements paid by the at-fault 

driver." Green v. Bauerle, Op. No. 2019-MO-026, at 2 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 

29, 2019). Additionally, the supreme court held the circuit court "properly found 

the jury verdicts were subject to setoff with regard to the settlement paid by [Grand 

Strand]."6

 Id. As to the calculation of the setoffs, the supreme court explained: 

The law requires the total amount paid by Grand 

Strand to be set off from the verdicts; however, we 

conclude the trial court's determination of the specific 

amounts to be set off from the verdicts was arbitrary, 

as the determination was based solely upon the ratios 

both verdicts bore to the whole. The setoffs should be 

calculated based upon the entirety of relevant 

circumstances, not solely upon such a formula. While 

these ratios may well be relevant to the ultimate 

determination of a proper setoff, they are not 

necessarily the sole relevant circumstance. Therefore, 

we vacate the trial court's order on this particular point 

and remand this issue to the trial court and direct it to 

 

5

 During the pendency of this appeal, Dr. Bauerle filed a motion seeking leave to 

deposit funds with the Horry County Clerk of Court and to release judgment liens 

against certain real property in Horry County. The circuit court granted this 

motion, specifically noting "the release of the judgment liens has no effect on any 

issues currently on appeal including the amount of the verdicts to which the 

Plaintiffs are ultimately entitled, which will be determined by the appellate courts." 

6

 Before the supreme court, the Greens did not pursue their challenge regarding the 

allocation of the CMR settlement. Id. at 4. 
convene a hearing to consider all relevant 

circumstances. The trial court shall then issue an order 

setting forth the amounts to be set off from the two 

verdicts. 

Id. at 6. On remand, the circuit court held the hearing as directed and found "each 

of the Plaintiffs' verdicts shall be reduced by $1 million" and "[a]pplication of a $1 

million setoff will reduce Mrs. Green's judgment to zero." The circuit court then 

set off Mr. Green's verdict by $1 million from the Grand Strand settlement and 

$20,175 from the CMR settlement.7

 

Dr. Bauerle moved to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, and the 

circuit court denied this motion. Dr. Bauerle timely appealed, and the Greens' 

request for Rule 204(b), SCACR certification was denied. 

Law and Analysis 

"The right to setoff has existed at common law in South Carolina for over 100 

years." Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C. 185, 195, 777 S.E.2d 824, 830 (2015). 

The "jurisdiction of the court to set off one judgment against another is equitable in 

its nature, and should be exercised so as to do justice between parties." Id. 

(quoting Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., 89 S.C. 371, 71 S.E. 

992, 995 (1911)); see also Church v. McGee, 391 S.C. 334, 342, 705 S.E.2d 481, 

485 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating setoff is equitable in nature, and thus an appellate 

court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the 

evidence). Section 15-38-50 of the South Carolina Code (2005) "grants the [trial] 

court no discretion . . . in applying a set-off." Green, Op. No. 2019-MO-026, at 6 

(quoting Smith v. Widener, 397 S.C. 468, 472, 724 S.E.2d 188, 190 (Ct. App. 

2012)). 

 

I. Allocation of Settlement Proceeds 

Dr. Bauerle argues the circuit court erred in finding the Greens intended that their 

$2 million settlement with Grand Strand be allocated equally between them. He 

claims the circuit court referenced only the arguments of counsel as "evidence" to 

 

7

 Mark Green, personal representative of the Estate of Randall M. Green (the 

Estate), was substituted by consent order for Mr. Green, who died at the age of 

sixty-nine on June 22, 2019. 
support its 50/50 allocation while erroneously rejecting the competent, probative 

evidence that did not support such a split. We disagree. 

"A non-settling defendant is entitled to credit for the amount paid by another 

defendant who settles for the same cause of action." Rutland v. S.C. Dep't of 

Transp., 400 S.C. 209, 216, 734 S.E.2d 142, 145 (2012). "Allowing setoff 

'prevents an injured person from obtaining a double recovery for the damage he 

sustained, for it is almost universally held that there can be only one satisfaction 

for an injury or wrong.'" Riley, 414 S.C. at 195, 777 S.E.2d at 830 (quoting 

Rutland, 400 S.C. at 216, 734 S.E.2d at 145). 

In 1988, these equitable principles were codified through the Uniform Contribution 

Among Tortfeasors Act (the Act). S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-38-10 to -70 (2005 and 

Supp. 2022). Section 15-38-50 provides: 

When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce 

judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more 

persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same 

wrongful death: 

(1) it does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from 

liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms 

so provide, but it reduces the claim against the others to 

the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the 

covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for 

it, whichever is the greater; and 

(2) it discharges the tortfeasor to whom it is given from 

all liability for contribution to any other tortfeasor. 

When a prior settlement involves compensation for the same injury, the nonsettling 

defendant's right to a setoff arises by operation of law under section 15-38-50. 

Ellis v. Oliver, 335 S.C. 106, 112–13, 515 S.E.2d 268, 271–72 (Ct. App. 1999). 

"However, our case law favors a plaintiff's ability to apportion settlement proceeds 

'in the manner most advantageous to it.'" Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., 435 S.C. 607, 

666–67, 869 S.E.2d 819, 851 (Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Riley, 414 S.C. at 197, 777 

S.E.2d at 831). 

Our supreme court's opinion in Riley provides guidance for the setoff analysis and 

reflects "the proper balance between preventing double-recovery and South 
Carolina's 'strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputes.'" Riley, 414 

S.C. at 196, 777 S.E.2d at 830 (quoting Chester v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 388 

S.C. 343, 346, 698 S.E.2d 559, 560 (2010)). Agreeing with the approach taken by 

the Illinois Court of Appeals, the supreme court explained: 

A plaintiff who enters into a settlement with a defendant 

gains a position of control and acquires leverage in 

relation to a nonsettling defendant. This posture is 

reflected in the plaintiff's ability to apportion the 

settlement proceeds in the manner most advantageous to 

it. Settlements are not designed to benefit nonsettling 

third parties. They are instead created by the settling 

parties in the interests of these parties. If the position of 

a nonsettling party is worsened by the terms of a 

settlement, this is a consequence of the refusal to settle. 

A defendant who fails to bargain is not rewarded with the 

privilege of fashioning and ultimately extracting a benefit 

from the decisions of those who do. 

Id. at 197, 777 S.E.2d at 831 (quoting Lard v. AM/FM Ohio, 901 N.E.2d 1006, 

1019 (Ill. App. 2009)). 

Dr. Bauerle asserts there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the 

Greens intended to allocate the $2 million Grand Strand settlement equally. He 

additionally argues that an April 14, 2016 consent order permitting the partial 

release of funds deposited with the clerk of court (the Consent Order) supports his 

position that the Greens did not intend to share equally in the settlement funds. 

The Consent Order followed the Greens' motion "for an Order directing that the 

sum of $228,505.69 be paid by the Clerk of Court to the Plaintiffs Randall Green 

and Ann Green." The Consent Order further provided "the judgment in favor of 

the Plaintiff Randall Green is partially satisfied by the payment of $163,622.01 and 

the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Ann Green is partially satisfied by the 

payment of $64,883.68." 

We are unable to find persuasive evidence in the record to support Dr. Bauerle's 

argument that the Greens did not intend to allocate the $2 million settlement 

equally. The language of the settlement agreement reflects that the $2 million was 

paid jointly to the Greens and was not otherwise allocated between them. The 

Greens submit that their decision not to specifically allocate the settlement funds 

indicates their intent to allocate the funds equally amongst themselves, and this is 
consistent with their joint bargaining for and acceptance of the settlement, the 

language of the agreement, Mrs. Green's testimony regarding her damages 

(including the extensive skilled care she provided her husband), Mr. Green's trial 

testimony acknowledging the extent of his wife's damages and care,8

 and the 

Greens' Life Care Plan. According to the Life Care Plan, Mrs. Green provided Mr. 

Green with more than $1,000,000 in round-the-clock skilled care. 

By contrast, cases in which settlements have been reallocated in a manner contrary 

to the settling parties' intent have involved situations for which no evidence existed 

to support the allocations. See, e.g., Rutland, 400 S.C. at 216, 400 S.E.2d at 145 

(agreeing with the court of appeals that the circuit court properly reallocated 

settlement funds to wrongful death claim where decedent's instant death involved 

no suffering or medical expenses, making any allocation to the survival action 

unreasonable); Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 312–13, 536 S.E.2d 408, 425–26 

(Ct. App. 2000) (affirming trial court's reallocation of settlement proceeds and 

noting decedent slipped into a coma at the time of his respiratory arrest and never 

awoke; thus, there was no evidence that he consciously suffered and the survival 

claim was properly limited to medical expenses). Such is not the case here. 

Moreover, we find Dr. Bauerle's argument ignores critical language in the Consent 

Order. The Consent Order stated, "Following an unpublished decision by the 

South Carolina Court of Appeals entered on February 3, 2016 in Green, Op. No. 

2016-UP-052, and the subsequent denial of the Petitions for Rehearing by the 

Court of Appeals, the sum of $228,505.69 deposited with the Clerk of Court is no 

longer contested." Although Dr. Bauerle challenged the circuit court's denial of 

any setoff from the UIM settlement funds at the court of appeals, he did not pursue 

this argument before the supreme court. Thus, we agree with the Greens that an 

isolated sentence from a Consent Order directing the release of undisputed funds in 

the total amount of a UIM payout has no application here. We note the UIM 

settlement addressed injuries suffered in the car accident—not in relation to the 

malpractice claim—and the Consent Order simply referenced judgments still owed 

under a since-vacated allocation order. Notably, the Consent Order provided the 

Horry County Clerk of Court would continue to hold the remainder of the 

 

8

 Mr. Green testified that Mrs. Green "omitted an awful lot" from her testimony 

about her daily schedule of caring for Mr. Green and their home. Mr. Green 

explained that she could not keep doing all that she did for him after she was 

diagnosed with heart problems and that she had been living with a hernia for two 

years because she refused to take time away from him to address it. He concluded 

his testimony by saying, "She's sacrificing her life for what is left of mine." 
deposited funds in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the circuit 

court's December 11, 2014 "Order Granting Leave to Deposit Funds Into Court and 

Releasing Judgment Liens"—which specifically stated "the release of the judgment 

liens has no effect on any issues currently on appeal[,] including the amount of the 

verdicts to which the Plaintiffs are ultimately entitled, which will be determined by 

the appellate courts." This order further provided that if the Greens prevailed in 

the prior appeal, Dr. Bauerle and "the South Carolina Medical Malpractice 

Patients' Compensation Fund will be liable for the judgments as determined by the 

appellate courts." Accordingly, we reject this argument challenging the current 

allocation. 

II. Loss of Consortium

Dr. Bauerle next argues the circuit court erred in calculating Mrs. Green's loss of 

consortium damages in a manner that exceeded the jury's verdict. As part of this 

argument, he contends the circuit court likewise "erred in concluding that such an 

allocation prevents the risk of a double recovery." We find no error. 

Dr. Bauerle argues the circuit court should have abandoned its own analysis of the 

evidence altogether and relied solely on a comparison of the two jury verdicts to 

find "Mr. Green's injuries far exceeded the loss of consortium" suffered by Mrs. 

Green." But see Riley, 414 S.C. at 191, 777 S.E.2d at 828 (stating it is not "within 

the province of a reviewing court" to evaluate the reasonableness of "the relative 

percentage of settlement proceeds assigned to each claim"). As in Riley, we find 

the circuit court's allocation is supported by the evidence and is reasonable under 

the facts of this case. In Riley, the supreme court found the nonsettling defendant 

was entitled to set off only the $5,000 that the settlement agreement apportioned to 

the wrongful death claim, holding: 

The court of appeals erred in accepting Ford's invitation 

to reapportion the agreed-upon allocation of settlement 

proceeds based on the purported impropriety of an 

apportionment favoring the Estate. Settling parties are 

naturally going to allocate settlement proceeds in a 

manner that serves their best interests. That fact alone is 

insufficient to justify appellate reapportionment for the 

sole purpose of benefitting Ford. Here, the trial 

court-approved allocation is unquestionably reasonable 

under the facts. In fact, Ford has never suggested that 

$20,000 for the survival action is unreasonable. Ford's 
effort to invalidate the allocation of settlement proceeds 

based on a "percentages" analysis is manifestly without 

merit under these circumstances. 

Id. at 197, 777 S.E.2d at 831. Because the circuit court's allocation is supported by 

the evidence in the record and is reasonable under the circumstances of this case, 

we reject Dr. Bauerle's attempt to invalidate it based on his formula presented here. 

Dr. Bauerle next urges us to find that a comparison of the Greens' jury verdicts 

governs the analysis of their respective rights to the Grand Strand settlement 

proceeds. However, to do so would contravene the supreme court's prior opinion 

in this case. See Green, Op. No. 2019-MO-026, at 6 ("The law requires the total 

amount paid by Grand Strand to be set off from the verdicts; however, we conclude 

the trial court's determination of the specific amounts to be set off from the verdicts 

was arbitrary, as the determination was based solely upon the ratios both verdicts 

bore to the whole. The setoffs should be calculated based upon the entirety of 

relevant circumstances, not solely upon such a formula. While these ratios may 

well be relevant to the ultimate determination of a proper setoff, they are not 

necessarily the sole relevant circumstance."). The circuit court's allocation of the 

setoff here prevented a double recovery because each plaintiff's verdict was 

reduced by the $1,000,000 settlement amount apportioned to their claim. See S.C. 

Code Ann. § 15-38-50 (2005 and Supp. 2022) (examining the effect of a release or 

covenant not to sue and the reduction of the claim against other tortfeasors). 

Incidentally, this afforded Mr. Green a total recovery equal to his $2.3 million 

verdict and eliminated all of Dr. Bauerle's liability to Mrs. Green. Dr. Bauerle 

seems to assert that Mrs. Green will receive a "windfall" if she is allowed to retain 

any settlement proceeds exceeding her jury award against him. But see 

§ 15-38-50; Riley, 414 S.C. at 197, 777 S.E.2d at 831 (2015) ("Settling parties are 

naturally going to allocate settlement proceeds in a manner that serves their best 

interests. That fact alone is insufficient to justify appellate reapportionment for the 

sole purpose of benefitting [a nonsettling party]."). We find Dr. Bauerle's current 

suggested approach lacks support in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Riley, 414 S.C. at 

197, 777 S.E.2d at 831 ("Settlements are not designed to benefit nonsettling third 

parties. They are instead created by the settling parties in the interests of these 

parties. If the position of a nonsettling party is worsened by the terms of a 

settlement, this is a consequence of the refusal to settle. A defendant who fails to 

bargain is not rewarded with the privilege of fashioning and ultimately extracting a 

benefit from the decisions of those who do." (quoting Lard, 901 N.E.2d at 1019)). 
III. Marital Property 

Dr. Bauerle asserts the circuit court erred in failing to treat the verdicts and 

settlement proceeds as marital or joint property, as previously argued by the 

Greens, and in failing to apply the setoff as dictated by our supreme court's 

precedent under similar circumstances. We disagree. 

In Orszula v. Orszula, 292 S.C. 264, 266, 356 S.E.2d 114, 114 (1987), our supreme 

court found that a workers' compensation award acquired during the marriage was 

marital property. This holding was based on our equitable distribution statute, now 

codified at section 20-3-630 of the South Carolina Code (2014), which provides all 

property acquired during a marriage is marital unless it falls within a statutorily 

delineated exception. Id. at 266, 356 S.E.2d at 114–15; see also § 20-3-630 

(defining the term "marital property" as "all real and personal property which has 

been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date 

of filing or commencement of marital litigation"). The supreme court has likewise 

found "proceeds of a personal injury settlement acquired during the marriage are 

marital property subject to the family court's jurisdiction." Marsh v. Marsh, 313 

S.C. 42, 46, 437 S.E.2d 34, 36 (1993). The court's reasoning emphasized the need 

to give the family court "the flexibility to view each case based on the individual 

circumstances peculiar to the parties involved and to fashion a division of the 

parties' assets in a manner that is uniquely fair to the parties concerned." Id. 

Therefore, we do not disagree with Dr. Bauerle's position that "the characterization 

of settlement funds as consideration for either Mr. Green's damages or Mrs. 

Green's loss of consortium could have far-reaching implications if they were to 

divorce." However, this argument is now moot—Mr. Green has passed away and 

the interests of the Estate and its beneficiaries will never be subjected to a divorce 

proceeding. In any event, this case law is irrelevant in the absence of the 

dissolution of a marriage or some related equitable distribution of a couple's 

assets.9

 

 

9 Dr. Bauerle also relies on Broome v. Watts, 319 S.C. 337, 461 S.E.2d 46 (1995), 

in support of his position that the Greens' settlement with Grand Strand as well as 

their jury verdicts should be deemed marital property. However, Broome 

addressed matters of UIM coverage and section 38-77-160 of the South Carolina 

Code (2015 and Supp. 2022), rather than section 15-38-50, the applicable statute 

here. Id. at 341, 461 S.E.2d at 48. The Broome court did not consider issues 

related to settlement allocation—it merely considered the total damages legally 

recoverable under contractual terms and the statutory purpose of UIM coverage. 
This case required an analysis of the terms of a joint settlement agreement and the 

question of the Greens' intent to allocate the joint settlement equally amongst 

themselves. The settlement agreement includes the following language: 

Randall M. Green and Ann Green, for and in 

consideration of a lump sum payment of Two Million 

and 00/100 ($2,000,000.00) Dollars, paid on behalf of 

Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC (hereinafter 

known as "Payer"), receipt whereof is hereby 

acknowledged, do hereby irrevocably bind themselves at 

no time or place to commence or prosecute any action or 

suit, or execute on any judgment on account of any claim 

for personal injury or negligence or any other claim or 

claims, actions or causes of action, including medical 

expenses, against the Payer, by reason of the alleged 

negligence in Mr. Green's treatment, specifically 

including but not limited to the lawsuit presently pending 

in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, Civil 

Action number 2011-CP-26-7403. 

The Greens' decision not to specifically allocate the joint settlement proceeds 

supports their assertion that they intended to allocate it equally amongst 

themselves. This is consistent with the language of the agreement, Mrs. Green's 

testimony regarding her damages and the care she provided for her husband, Mr. 

Green's testimony recognizing the extent of his wife's care and damages, and the 

couple's Life Care Plan detailing the skilled care Mrs. Green had provided to Mr. 

Green by the time of the Grand Strand settlement. 

We find no error in the circuit court's allocation. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court is 

AFFIRMED. 

GEATHERS, J. and HILL, A.J. concur.