defective. If anything, his testimony suggests the battery in the ICD device was working too well; the ICD activated at times when he believed his heart rate was normal. At one point, Melton testified that the battery powering the ICD “never malfunctioned between the date that it was implanted and the date it was explanted.” Further, to the extent the ICD was “defective” in the sense that it was prone to over-activation, Melton also failed to present evidence that Dr. Feldman or Columbia Heart Clinic knew this at the time Dr. Feldman implanted the ICD. Accordingly, Melton failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Feldman’s implantation of the ICD, in and of itself, constituted malpractice. 3. Improper Corp., 324 S.C. 359, 365, 478 S.E.2d 81, 84 (Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Melton failed to present
holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care