THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Betty Windham & William K. Windham, Appellants,
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-394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
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”).
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.