McCourt v. Abernathy

457 S.E.2d 603 (1995)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

McCourt v. Abernathy

South Carolina Supreme Court
457 S.E.2d 603 (1995)

Play video

Facts

Wendy McCourt (plaintiff) poked her finger and then worked around horse manure and dirt. Two days later, McCourt hyperextended a shoulder. McCourt visited Dr. Glenn Abernathy (defendant), who treated her for a pulled muscle. Four days later, McCourt went to the emergency room with breathing issues and chest pain. Dr. J. D. Clyde (defendant) cleaned and dressed McCourt’s finger, treated her pulled muscle, and discharged her. The next day, McCourt was worse and went back to the emergency room. The emergency-room doctor ran blood tests and admitted McCourt to the hospital. A few hours later, Abernathy gave McCourt an antibiotic for her finger. In the morning, Abernathy and Clyde saw that McCourt was still getting worse and asked another doctor to examine her. The consulting doctor diagnosed McCourt with sepsis, a dangerous reaction to a bacterial infection, and sent her to intensive care for more aggressive treatment. McCourt was ultimately diagnosed with an infection from flesh-eating bacteria that had spread into her bloodstream and throughout her body. Over the next four days, McCourt suffered increasingly worse symptoms, such as her skin falling off, blood in her eyes, bleeding from her nose and mouth, and severe bloating. McCourt eventually died of multiple organ-system failures. McCourt’s estate sued Abernathy and Clyde for medical malpractice. The estate presented expert testimony that both Abernathy and Clyde had repeatedly failed to provide McCourt with a competent standard of care because a reasonably prudent doctor would have taken many care actions much sooner. Experts also testified that earlier treatment for McCourt’s infection likely would have saved her life. Abernathy and Clyde asked for specific jury instructions stating that a medical mistake, by itself, is not necessarily malpractice. The trial court did not use the requested instructions but did use other instructions that said something similar. The jury found that both doctors had committed medical malpractice and awarded regular and punitive damages to McCourt’s estate. The doctors appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by refusing to use their specific, medical-mistake jury instructions and by allowing a punitive-damages award for a mere mistake.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership