0-1 Doctors Memorial Holding Co. v. Moore, s. 77733
Decision Date | 13 February 1989 |
Docket Number | 77769,Nos. 77733,s. 77733 |
Citation | 378 S.E.2d 708,190 Ga.App. 286 |
Parties | 0-1 DOCTORS MEMORIAL HOLDING COMPANY et al. v. MOORE; MOORE v. 0-1 DOCTORS MEMORIAL HOLDING COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Nall, Miller, Owens, Hocutt & Howard, George R. Neuhauser, Michael D. Hostetter, Atlanta, for appellants.
Nickerson & Tuszynski, David E. Tuszynski, Atlanta, for appellee.
Kenneth Moore brought a medical malpractice suit against 0-1 Doctors Memorial Holding Company and Emory University d/b/a Crawford W. Long Memorial Hospital of Emory University (collectively, the "Hospital") and three individuals, William Armstrong, M.D., Judith Ericsson, M.D., and Kathleen Rogers, seeking damages for injuries he incurred as a result of alleged negligent medical care and treatment he received from the defendants. Although due to time constraints no expert's affidavit was filed with the complaint, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1(b) Moore amended his complaint within 45 days to file the affidavit of Joseph Bussey, M.D. The Hospital moved to dismiss Moore's complaint on the ground that the affidavit failed to comport with the requirements for an expert affidavit pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1. The trial court refused to consider Moore's amendment to the affidavit and granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss as to all the defendants, specifically noting that the dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits of Moore's claim. Both sides appeal.
1. Since we find the second enumeration raised by Moore as the cross-appellant in Case No. 77769 to be dispositive of both appeals, we address it first. Moore (hereinafter "appellant") contends the trial court erred when it dismissed his complaint on the basis that his affidavit submitted pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) was insufficient under that statute's requirements. OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) provides: "In any action for damages alleging professional malpractice, the plaintiff shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of an expert competent to testify, which affidavit shall set forth specifically at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim."
Appellant filed an affidavit from Joseph Bussey, M.D., in which Dr. Bussey averred that he was over the age of eighteen years, that he was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Georgia, that he was a graduate of Emory University School of Medicine and that he was a board certified general surgeon. Dr. Bussey then stated he had reviewed the Hospital's records for the admission of appellant and certain photographs, which were attached and incorporated by reference to the affidavit. The affidavit then contained Dr. Bussey's statements that The affidavit was properly signed and notarized.
The Hospital and the individual cross-appellees (hereinafter "appellees") contend this affidavit was insufficient because Dr. Bussey failed to set forth the appropriate standard of care, his familiarity with that standard of care, and the specific details of how appellees deviated from that standard. Appellees assert this language had to be present in the affidavit in order to establish both that Dr. Bussey was an expert competent to testify (apparently in that an affiant cannot qualify as an expert if he does not demonstrate his familiarity with the applicable standard of care) and that the alleged act constituted negligence (in that negligence can be established solely by comparing the act committed to the standard of care required of health care professionals).
Nothing in the affidavit requirements in OCGA § 9-11-9.1 demands that the standard of care be set forth, that a plaintiff's expert state he is familiar with the appropriate standard of care, or that the affiant detail the manner in which the defendant deviated from that standard. Thus the plain language of the statute does not support appellees' arguments. Appellees argue, however, that the requirement of an expert affidavit in OCGA § 9-11-9.1 mirrors the recognized requirements placed upon malpractice plaintiffs at the summary judgment level to overcome the presumption that medical care was rendered in an ordinarily skillful manner, see generally Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269, 271(2), 98 S.E.2d 552 (1957...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Department of Transp. v. Dupree, A02A1573.
...supra at 124, 416 S.E.2d 102; see also Ulbrich v. Batts, 206 Ga.App. 74, 75, 424 S.E.2d 288 (1992); 0-1 Doctors Mem. Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga.App. 286, 287-288, 378 S.E.2d 708 (1989). An affidavit sufficient under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 should be sufficient to make out subject matter jurisdict......
-
Harris v. Murray
...and which would have been done, notwithstanding that the affidavit is defective but amendable. 0-1 Doctors Memorial Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga.App. 286, 288(1), 378 S.E.2d 708 (1989); accord Hewett v. Kalish, 264 Ga. 183, 184(1), 442 S.E.2d 233 (1994); Gadd v. Wilson, etc., 262 Ga. 234, 2......
-
Sood v. Smeigh
...an expert's affidavit." Thompson v. Ezor, 272 Ga. 849, 852(2), 536 S.E.2d 749 (2000); see generally 0-1 Doctors Mem. Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga.App. 286, 288(1), 378 S.E.2d 708 (1989). Here, there is a qualified medical expert ready to testify under oath that the defendant was negligent i......
-
Chandler v. Koenig
...to testify as an expert in a malpractice case). This result is also in accord with our opinion in 0-1 Doctors, etc., Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga.App. 286, 378 S.E.2d 708 (1989), in which we interpreted OCGA § 9-11-9.1 to mean that when the affiant is "competent to testify," there is no need to set......
-
Fisher v. Gala: O.c.g.a. § 9-11-9.1(e) Keeping Malpractice Claims Afloat
...119. Porquez, 268 Ga. at 652, 492 S.E.2d at 668.120. Bowen, 203 Ga. App. at 124, 416 S.E.2d 103; 0-1 Doctors Mem'l Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga. App. 286, 288, 378 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1989).121. Walker v. Cromartie, 287 Ga. 511, 512, 696 S.E.2d 654, 657 (2010).122. Phoebe Putney Mem'l Hosp., 2......
-
Hewitt v. Kalish: Qualifying as an "expert Competent to Testify" Under O.c.g.a. Section 9-11-9.1 - Richard T. Hills
...Sec. 9-11-9.1 (1993)). 16. Hardy Gregory, Jr., Georgia Civil Practice Sec. 3-3 (1990). 17. 0-1 Doctors Memorial Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga. App. 286,288, 378 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1989). 18. Gregory, supra note 16. 19. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-ll-9.1(a) (1993). See supra note 3. 20. 161 Ga. App. 495, 2......