It seems that the South Carolina Supreme Court and General Assembly are in a fight over who controls expert testimony in the state’s courts.  The General Assembly has amended professional licensing statutes to prohibit physicians and engineers who are not licensed in South Carolina from offering expert testimony.  Such is considered “the practice of medicine” or “the practice of engineering” and thus cannot be undertaken without a valid state license.
Well, with no actual case or controversy before it, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended the statutory amendments regarding the practice of medicine:

The South Carolina Constitution vests this Court with the authority to make rules governing the administration of the unified South Carolina court system.  S.C. Const. art V, § 4.  In order to prevent a significant impairment to this Court’s duty to properly administer the judicial power of South Carolina, and pursuant to Article V, Section 4’s authority, we hereby temporarily delay judicial enforcement of Act 385 insofar as the Act requires a physician to obtain a license to practice medicine in South Carolina before offering expert medical testimony in a South Carolina administrative or court proceeding.
While we remain respectful of the General Assembly’s voice in matters of practice and procedure in South Carolina’s courts, this Court cannot allow the administration of justice to be substantially impaired.  We are confident, however, that when the General Assembly provides further clarity on this matter, the changes that result will reflect careful consideration and deliberation; will consider and account for the scope of the court’s existing rules and the need for efficient and orderly court administration; and will be subjected to close scrutiny in the Judiciary Committees of both the South Carolina Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Court acted in similar fashion yesterday when it considered a trial court’s exclusion of an engineering expert because he was not licensed in state.  According to the court,  “Without clear indication from the Legislature that the 2000 amendment was, in fact, intended specifically to limit Rule 702 in this way, we decline to adopt that interpretation.”
We’ll see if the General Assembly tucks its tail on this one, or if it is ready for a fight with the Courts. 

See also SCAL Blog and WISTV.com.