SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 9 ■
Part of the
APRIL 25, 2022 ■ $8.50
network
Supreme Court expands scope of death penalty reviews ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com
abnormalities, critical findings, or cause for concern. As such, the client went on about his day-to-day activities until his on-again, off-again symptoms became unbearable in 2018. He underwent another MRI, and this time, Kilpatrick identified the tumor, which had nearly tripled in size since the time of the original scan. The client immediately underwent a tumor resection surgery for what was determined to be
The South Carolina Supreme Court has never struck down a death sentence for being disproportionate, a record that remains intact after the court denied habeas relief to a man who was sentenced to death for robbing and killing a store clerk. But the court has, for the first time, agreed to treat cases that didn’t result in a death penalty sentence as “similar cases” during its required proportionality review, perhaps making it easier for future defendants to bring a successful challenge. Richard Moore argued that his 2001 death sentence was disproportionate, that the proportionality review the Supreme Court conducted in 2004 was insufficient because it considered only other death penalty cases, and that the court should expand its comparative proportionality review to include a larger pool of cases in which the death penalty wasn’t imposed. The court declined to find Moore’s sentence disproportionate to his crime, but it agreed that proportionality reviews are typically intended to compare the sentence of one defendant to the sentence imposed on others who were convicted of the same offense—but not necessarily sentenced the same way. Writing for the court in the April 6 opinion, Chief Justice Donald Beatty noted that while the court determined in its 1982 decision in State
S e e Pe d i a t r i c P a g e 5 ►
S e e D e a t h Pe n a l t y P a g e 5 ►
Missed pediatric tumor leads to $28.5M settlement, policy changes ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com A teenager who discovered that he was suffering from brain cancer nearly two and a half years after a radiologist failed to diagnose a tumor there has settled his medical malpractice and negligence case for $28.5 million, his attorneys report. William Applegate and Perry Buckner of Yarborough Applegate in Charleston report that their client was 14 years old in 2015 when he experienced shooting pain head-
aches, balance issues, fatigue, and dizziness. At the time, he was a student and basketball player at the Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics. The client’s doctor ordered a brain MRI, which was performed at Florence MRI & Imaging, a Medquest Associates, Inc. imaging center, in December 2015. The results were read and interpreted by Dr. Zachary Kilpatrick, who acted as a radiologist for several Medquest centers. The attorneys said that Kilpatrick’s radiology report indicated no
Student’s First Amendment claim reinstated on appeal ■ BY JASON BOLEMAN A former Virginia high school student’s First Amendment claim against a county’s school board has been reinstated after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the former student’s complaint “plausibly alleges a First Amendment claim.” The case stems from a conversation amongst classmates on Feb. 15, 2018, one day after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Jonathan Starbuck engaged in a conversation with his classmates about the shooting that he alleged was factual and contained no threats from
any student in the conversation. According to the 4th Circuit’s opinion, Starbuck “made remarks questioning the intent of the shooter, stating that the shooter would be capable of more harm had he wanted to, noting [the shooter’s] possession of explosives and considering the time the shooter was left alone within the building unchallenged by local law enforcement.” A teacher reported the conversation to the local police and to school administration, resulting in Starbuck’s removal from class for the rest of the day. During this time, Starbuck alleged that school officials interrogated him and that the school police officer found no threat was made and no criminal
offense occurred. That evening, Starbuck’s parent was informed that he faced a two-day out-of-school suspension, citing “unspecified ‘threats.’” The initial in-school suspension was given due to concerns for Starbuck’s “own safety.” Starbuck appealed his suspension, and the Williamsburg-James City County School Board found the suspension proper in May 2018. He later brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the school board, alleging the suspension violated his First, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights, citing free speech and due S e e 1s t A m e n d m e n t P a g e 6 ►
INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
COMMENTARY
After failing to pay $95K, insurer agrees to pay $11.7M
Injured biker settles suit for $1.25M
Has the legal system failed us? Not so PFAS-t!
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4