A South Carolina law that makes it more difficult to sue engineers will not protect a corporation being sued over a product its engineers designed, a federal judge has ruled.
George Oakman suffered a tragic accident in October of 2009. Oakman was breathing through a prescription oxygen concentrator machine — a medical device that converts room air into nearly pure oxygen—when the machine caught fire while he was sleeping. Oakman inhaled fire into his throat, lungs, and stomach, and sustained burns to his face and body, and died four days later as a result of the fire.
The machine was manufactured by Airsep, which is owned in whole by Chart Industries. Oakman’s widow, Jeannette Oakman, sued Airsep, Chart and Lincare, which sold the machine and the tube Oakman was breathing through. Her suit, which was later removed to federal court, alleges products liability, strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
The defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the estate hadn’t complied with South Carolina’s Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act. Passed in 1988, the act creates additional requirements for lawsuits alleging professional negligence against an engineer (and many other types of licensed professionals). Among them, a plaintiff must file as part of the complaint an affidavit from an expert witness specifying the allegedly negligent acts and the factual basis for them. The defendants contended that because the machine was designed by an engineer, they were afforded protection under the law.
Oakman did not file an expert affidavit and countered that none was necessary for her defective design claim because it was brought against a corporate entity and not any individual professional engineer. In a case of first impression for the court, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs agreed with Oakman and found that no
affidavit was needed for a suit against a corporation.
Childs ruled that when a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the court has no right to impose another meaning. In this case, the article “a” and the singular noun “professional” in the second clause of the statute clearly and unambiguously demonstrate the legislature’s intention to apply the filing requirement only to actions brought against individual persons—not to actions brought against the corporations or other business entities that employ the individuals.
Further, the exceptions contained in the statute helped prove the rule, Childs said. The affidavit requirement also applies to any health care facility, a clause that would be entirely superfluous if the requirement applied to actions brought against any and all corporations or business entities. Such a construction, Childs said, was also consistent with the statute’s overarching purpose.
“Some of the harshest consequences of frivolous litigation, including expensive attorney’s fees and other economic and time losses, often affect individual defendant persons more severely than defendant corporations or other business entities because of the potential disparities in financial and human resources between the two,” Childs wrote.
Tom Woodruff of Woodruff Law Offices in Aiken represented the estate. Erin Lawson Coia and James R. Doyle of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith in Atlanta represented Lincare. Jack G. Gresh and Shawn Pinkston of Hall Booth Smith in Charleston represented Airsep.
The 12-page decision is Oakman v. Lincare Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-111-13). A full opinion digest is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan
OPINION BRIEF
Case name: Oakman v. Lincare Inc.
Court: U.S. District Court for South Carolina
Judges: J. Michelle Childs
Attorney for plaintiff: Tom Woodruff, Woodruff Law Offices (Aiken)
Attorneys for defendant: Erin Lawson Coia and James R. Doyle, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith (Atlanta); Jack G. Gresh and Shawn Pinkston, Hall Booth Smith (Charleston)
Issue: Does South Carolina’s Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act require plaintiffs to include an expert affidavit with the complaint when plaintiff sues a corporation for allegedly negligent design by the corporation’s engineers?
Holding: No.
Importance: The defendant’s reading of the FCPSA, if accepted by the court, would have been an expansive reading of the expert affidavit requirement.