With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a government hospital beyond a private hospital’s potential liability. In fact, Kerr’s counsel conceded the statute of repose bar in a private action when stating, “by the time this client came to see me, [the estate] had clearly lost [its] right under [section] 15-3-545(A), the right to pursue any private entity because of the medical malpractice statute of repose. Six years had transpired.” To permit this medical malpractice action to proceed beyond the statute of repose would be to disregard the Tort Claims Act, particularly sections 15-78-40 and 15-78-50(b). Having found Hospital was entitled to summary judgment based on the statute of repose, we need not reach the additional ground relied upon by the trial court. Wilson v. Moseley, 327 S.C. 144, 147, 488 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1997) (<HOLDING>). III. As the six-year statute of repose in

A: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive
B: holding if one ground proves dispositive then this court need not address the remaining grounds relied on by a trial court when it granted summary judgment
C: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive
D: holding that an appellate court need not address all remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive
B.