Last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the issue whether an indemnification claim is subject to that state’s medical malpractice statute of limitations, when the claim is for recovery of a payment made to settle a malpractice action.

In 1997 Dr. A and Dr. B were working in the Providence Hospital ER, when they misdiagnosed a patient.  In 1999 the patient and his wife sued the hospital and Dr. A—but not Dr. B—for malpractice.  In 2004 the hospital settled with the plaintiffs.

In 2007 the hospital filed an indemnification action against Dr. B and his malpractice insurer, seeking an equitable share of the amount it had paid to settle with the plaintiffs.

Dr. B and his insurer moved for summary judgment, invoking the state’s six-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims.  The hospital responded that its action was not a medical malpractice claim, so the statute didn’t apply.

Did the statute apply?  The court ruled in the affirmative and upheld summary judgment for Dr. B and his insurer.  But the vote was close:  three to two.  The majority opinion turned on the fact that for the case to go forward, the hospital would have to prove that Dr. B was guilty of medical malpractice back in 1997—something that had never been adjudicated and, in fact, had never been alleged until the hospital filed its suit in 2007.  The statute was intended to protect a doctor from defending himself so long after the alleged malpractice.

The case is Columbia/CSA-HS Greater Columbia d/b/a Providence Hospital v. S. Car. Med. Mal. Liability, Opinion No. 27484 (S. Car. Jan. 21).