Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dr. David R. Baird, Dr. George D. Grice, Dr. Michael Lampkin, and Dr. Jay B. Robards, Appellants v. Charleston…

January 18, 1999333 S.C. 519

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the doctors' claim that the bond issuance aided the unlawful practice of medicine, but reversed the trial court's dismissal or summary judgment on the remaining claims. It held that the doctors had standing based on the substantial public interest involved, were not required to satisfy the statutory prerequisites applicable to suits affecting state obligations, and were entitled to litigate factual issues concerning a council member's conflict and the bond recipient's statutory status. The court also held that the trial court improperly converted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions into summary judgment motions without adequate notice.

Holding

  • Conversion of Rule 12(b)(6) motions. The trial court improperly converted the County's Rule 12(b)(6) motions into summary judgment motions because the County's affidavits were presented for jurisdictional purposes and the parties were not given notice that matters outside the pleadings would be considered on the failure-to-state-a-claim issues.
  • Standing to challenge the bond issuance. The doctors had standing to challenge the bond issuance because the action alleged that the County exceeded its statutory authority and involved an immense public interest in public health and welfare.
  • Statutory conditions precedent for suits affecting state obligations. The doctors were not required to comply with the procedure governing suits affecting the issuance or sale of state securities because the bonds were county hospital revenue bonds, not state bonds or securities.
  • Conflict of interest and validity of the bond ordinance. The doctors stated a claim that the bond ordinance could be invalidated based on the allegedly conflicted council member's vote, and summary judgment was improper because genuine issues remained concerning both the existence of a conflict and whether it warranted invalidation.
  • UMA's status as a hospital agency or public agency. Dismissal and summary judgment were improper on the issue whether UMA qualified as a hospital agency because the pleadings stated a claim and a genuine factual dispute existed concerning whether UMA was empowered to acquire, operate, and maintain hospital facilities.
  • Corporate practice of medicine and the County's bond issuance. The doctors failed to state a claim against the County based on the theory that issuing bonds would aid UMA's unlawful practice of medicine. The possibility that UMA might use bond proceeds for unlawful activity did not itself invalidate the County's decision to issue the bonds, and any injunction against the alleged practice should be sought directly against UMA.

Docket 24885

Cited authorities

  • Rule 12(b)
  • Rule 12(b)
  • Rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 12(b)
  • Rule 12(b)
  • Rule 56(c)
  • Rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 8(a)(1)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF