THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Betty Windham & William K. Windham, Appellants,
v.
McLeod Regional Medical Center of the Pee Dee, Inc., Respondent.
Appeal From Florence County
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-394
Submitted June 9, 2003 � Filed June
12, 2003
AFFIRMED
Chalmers Carey Johnson, of Charleston, for Appellants.
Teresat A. Arnold, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:�� Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to all issues: Murray v. Bank of America, N.A., ___ S.C. ___, ___, 580 S.E.2d 194, ___ (Ct. App. 2003) (�The trial court�s decision to deny a motion for new trial absolute is within its discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.�); Pike v. S.C. Dep�t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 234, 540 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2000) (�It is well settled that the admission and rejection of testimony is largely within the trial court�s sound discretion.�); Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361, 365, 429 S.E.2d 190, 192 (1993) (�Absent a clear abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law, the trial judge�s ruling on the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.�); Bishop v. S.C. Dep�t of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88, 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) (�To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty.� (emphasis added)); Carver v. Medical Soc. of S.C., 286 S.C. 347, 350, 334 S.E.2d 125, 127 (Ct. App. 1985) (�Proof of proximate cause must [] be established by expert testimony where either the origin of the injury is obscure and not readily apparent to a layperson or where there are several equally probable causes of the condition.�); Armstrong v. Weiland, 267 S.C. 12, 16, 225 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1976) (holding when the plaintiff offers no expert testimony to prove proximate cause, the plaintiff must offer evidence that �rises above mere speculation or conjecture�).
AFFIRMED.1
GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, Acting Judge, concur.
1 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.