Carter v. Myers
| Decision Date | 08 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A0263,A92A0263 |
| Citation | 419 S.E.2d 747,204 Ga.App. 498 |
| Parties | CARTER et al. v. MYERS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joyner & Joyner, Gordon L. Joyner, Atlanta, for appellants.
Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Douglas W. Smith, Paul R. Vancil, Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Joseph W. Watkins, Marvin A. Delvin, Atlanta, for appellees.
This appeal arises out of a dental malpractice action filed by appellants. Appellants appeal from the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to defendants on the issue of punitive damages.
Appellants, husband and wife, filed a verified complaint against Dr. Walter Myers ("Dr. Myers") and Dr. Abe Shuster ("Dr. Shuster.") The complaint alleged in relevant part: Dr. Shuster performed dental surgery on Mrs. Henrietta Carter on March 25, 1987, and on March 30, 1987, Mrs. Carter telephoned Dr. Shuster's office because she was experiencing pain and swelling in the area of the surgery. Dr. Shuster's office referred Mrs. Carter to Dr. Myers. Mrs. Carter explained her symptoms to Dr. Myers, who then examined Mrs. Carter for approximately five minutes and prescribed Betadine mouthwash. The following day, Mrs. Carter's symptoms became worse, and she went to see Dr. Shuster who examined her mouth and found nothing wrong. On April 2, 1987, Mrs. Carter's condition worsened even more, and she again went to Dr. Shuster who again found nothing wrong but prescribed some medication for her. On April 4, 1987, Mrs. Carter sought emergency treatment, and on April 6, 1987 Mrs. Carter was hospitalized for emergency surgery due to an infection in her mouth and throat which had become life threatening. In addition to the special damages prayed for, appellants sought damages for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, punitive damages, costs of litigation, and attorney fees. Drs. Shuster and Myers, respectively, filed motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. Following a hearing, the trial court granted both motions, and appellants appeal that ruling. Subsequent to the docketing of this case in this court, the appeal was withdrawn as to Dr. Shuster but not as to Dr. Myers, appellee herein.
1. Appellants contend in their first enumeration of error that the trial court erred in not admitting the deposition of Mrs. Carter into evidence at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment. It is undisputed that the deposition of Mrs. Carter was not on file at the time of the hearing on appellee's motion for summary judgment. Since the deposition was not filed, it was not a matter of record for the trial judge's consideration in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Knight v. Bryant-Durham Elec. Co., 169 Ga.App. 502, 503, 313 S.E.2d 758 (1984). Appellants' argument that the trial court should have allowed Mrs. Carter's deposition to be admitted because it allowed another unfiled deposition to be admitted is without merit. The record reflects that a written request was made to file the original deposition of Dr. C. Ray Bennett. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court was informed that the original deposition had not been filed due to a mistaken belief that the court reporter in the State of Tennessee, where the deposition was taken, would provide a sealed original. The trial judge exercised his discretion and allowed the deposition of Dr. Bennett to be included as part of the record. We also note that appellants' counsel expressed no opposition to the consideration of Dr. Bennett's deposition and relied on matters in the deposition during his argument to the court. In contrast, appellants made no written request to file the deposition of Mrs. Carter, and appellee voiced an objection to the consideration of that deposition at the hearing. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to allow the deposition of Mrs. Carter to be considered as evidence.
2. Appellants next contend that the trial court erred in ruling that several pages of notes attached to appellants' verified complaint did not constitute an affidavit for consideration in opposition to appellee's motion for summary judgment. Attached to appellants' verified complaint was a document captioned Appellants' complaint, verified by Mrs. Carter, states that "the allegations and statements set forth in the foregoing Complaint and the 'Notes Regarding Complaint of Mrs. Henrietta Carter' ... are factual, true, and correct." Appellants argue that the notes satisfied all legal requirements for an affidavit and should have been considered as such. " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Barnett v. State
-
Evans v. Willis
...to support a claim for punitive damages. Since this cause of action arose before July 1, 1987, OCGA § 51-12-5 applies. Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga.App. 498, 419 S.E.2d 747. " 'To authorize the imposition of punitive damages there must be evidence of wilful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness,......
-
Dow Chemical Co. v. OGLETREE, DEAKINS
...punitive damages is governed by OCGA § 51-12-5(a) rather than by OCGA § 51-12-5.1. OCGA § 51-12-5(b). See Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga.App. 498, 500-501(3), 419 S.E.2d 747 (1992). 3. In its brief, Dow argues that its failure to install monitoring wells "is relevant to the issue of punitive damag......
-
Mountain Bound v. Alliant FoodService, A99A1994.
...resulted in the waiver of this objection. Glisson v. Morton, 203 Ga.App. 77, 78(2), 416 S.E.2d 134 (1992); see Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga.App. 498, 500(1), 419 S.E.2d 747 (1992). 2. Mountain Bound and Johnson assert that the trial court improperly considered a defendant's unverified response t......