Case Name: Chad BOWIE, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Pamela BOWIE, Petitioner v. Henry B. HEARN, IV, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1988-01-25
Citations: 294 S.C. 344
Docket Number: 22831
Parties: Chad BOWIE, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Pamela BOWIE, Petitioner v. Henry B. HEARN, IV, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 294
Pages: 344–346

Head Matter:
22831
Chad BOWIE, a Minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Pamela BOWIE, Petitioner v. Henry B. HEARN, IV, Respondent.
(364 S. E. (2d) 469)
Supreme Court
J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., of the Law Offices of J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., Columbia, for petitioner.
Cary C. Doyle, of Doyle & O’Rourke, Anderson, and Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
Heard Dec. 11, 1987.
Decided Jan. 25, 1988.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This is a medical malpractice action. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 292 S. C. 223, 355 S. E. (2d) 550. The only issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner failed to present sufficient expert testimony to warrant submission of the case to the jury. We reverse.
Respondent delivered petitioner by caesarian section. Petitioner's cheek was cut during the surgery and a scar resulted.
Petitioner's expert testified that a caesarean section requires a series of incisions through various layers of the mother's abdomen. He stated that the proper procedure is to make a tiny initial incision in each layer and then lift the edges of that incision and make it larger and deeper. According to the testimony, use of this standard technique will not result in injury to the baby.
Respondent testified that when he reached the uterus, he made three or four "swipes" with a scalpel in order to incise the uterine wall. Petitioner's expert's testimony was evidence that respondent's action deviated from the recognized and generally accepted caesarean procedure. The trial judge properly submitted the issue of respondent's malpractice to the jury. Cox v. Lund, 286 S. C. 410, 334 S. E. (2d) 116 (1985). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.