Crisp Regional Hosp., Inc. v. Sanders, No. A06A0844.

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Writing for the CourtAdams
Citation281 Ga. App. 393,636 S.E.2d 123
Docket NumberNo. A06A0845.,No. A06A0844.
Decision Date31 August 2006
PartiesCRISP REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC. et al. v. SANDERS. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Sanders.
281 Ga. App. 393
636 S.E.2d 123
CRISP REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC. et al.
v.
SANDERS.
Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc.
v.
Sanders.
No. A06A0844.
No. A06A0845.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
August 31, 2006.

Page 124

Anthony A. Rowell, Thomas M. Burke, Jr., Michael G. Frick, Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, for appellants. (Case No. A06A0844).

William H. Gregory, II, Langley & Lee, L.L.C., Albany, for appellant. (Case No. A06A0845).

Charles R. Adams, Jr., O'Neal, Adams & Adams, Manley F. Brown, John C. Clark, Brown & Clark, Charles W. Byrd, Tracey L. Dellacona, Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Byrd, for appellee.

Matthew G. Nasrallah, Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah, for amicus curiae.

ADAMS, Judge.


Plaintiff Mary Ann Sanders filed a medical malpractice action against, inter alia, Crisp Regional Hospital, Inc. and Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. on February 2, 2004. When the Tort Reform Act of 2005 became effective the following year, defendants sent plaintiff a medical authorization form which they contended she was required to sign in order to comply with newly enacted OCGA § 9-11-9.2.1 Plaintiff refused to execute the authorization defendants provided to her, and instead moved for a protective order so that she would not be required to execute the form sent to her by the defendants or to provide the medical authorization form required by OCGA § 9-11-9.2. Plaintiff attached a "Conditional Medical Authorization Form" to her motion, to be used in the event that the court ruled that she was required to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2. This authorization, unlike the form sent to her by the defendants, expressly did not allow defendants' counsel to engage in ex parte communications with her doctors.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint due to her failure to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2, or in the alternative, moved to compel compliance with that section. Although the parties raised [281 Ga. App. 394] several issues in their respective motions, the trial court addressed only one—whether OCGA § 9-11-9.2 is preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-191; 42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq. (HIPAA). The trial court found that HIPAA preempted the state law, and accordingly, granted plaintiff's motion for protective order and denied defendants' motions to dismiss. We granted defendants' applications for interlocutory appeal to review this issue.

The identical issue raised in this appeal—whether HIPAA preempts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Allen v. Wright, No. S06G2018.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 14, 2007
    ...[is] controlling here." Allen v. Wright, 280 Ga.App. 554, 555(1), 634 S.E.2d 518 (2006). See also Crisp Regional Hosp. v. Sanders, 281 Ga.App. 393, 636 S.E.2d 123 Appellants applied for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Because the preemption question was an issue o......
1 cases
  • Allen v. Wright, No. S06G2018.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 14, 2007
    ...[is] controlling here." Allen v. Wright, 280 Ga.App. 554, 555(1), 634 S.E.2d 518 (2006). See also Crisp Regional Hosp. v. Sanders, 281 Ga.App. 393, 636 S.E.2d 123 Appellants applied for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Because the preemption question was an issue o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT