Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2015-002653 Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-230
05-31-2017
Johnnie Mae Reed, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra Gilbert, Appellant, v. CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster and Nimal A. Perera, M.D., Respondents.
D. Cravens Ravenel, of Baker Ravenel & Bender, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant. George Cox Beighley, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent Nimal A. Perera. Perry D. Boulier and Joshua Tate Thompson, both of Holcombe Bomar, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. Appeal From Lancaster County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
D. Cravens Ravenel, of Baker Ravenel & Bender, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant. George Cox Beighley, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent Nimal A. Perera. Perry D. Boulier and Joshua Tate Thompson, both of Holcombe Bomar, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster. 2 PER CURIAM: In this wrongful death and survival action against CareNet, Inc. of Lancaster and Nimal A. Perera, M.D. (collectively, Respondents), Johnnie Mae Reed, as personal representative of the estate of Sandra Gilbert, appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial following a verdict in favor of Respondents. On appeal, Reed argues the trial court erred by denying the motion because it erroneously excluded critical testimony at trial regarding whether Dr. Perera, Gilbert's primary care physician, deviated from the standard of care while treating Gilbert. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the discretion of the [trial] court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless its findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law."); Samples v. Mitchell, 329 S.C. 105, 108, 495 S.E.2d 213, 215 (Ct. App. 1997) ("Making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination. The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced."); Parr v. Gaines, 309 S.C. 477, 481, 424 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 1992) ("A motion in limine, even if granted, does not remove the need for a contemporaneous objection at trial."). AFFIRMED. 3 GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.