Crisp Regional Nursing v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 22 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. A02A0873.,A02A0873.
• Citation: 258 Ga. App. 540,574 S.E.2d 650
• Parties: CRISP REGIONAL NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

574 S.E.2d 650

258 Ga. App. 540

CRISP REGIONAL NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER v. JOHNSON et al.

No. A02A0873.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

November 22, 2002.

Durham, McHugh & Duncan, James B. Durham, Brunswick, William M. McHugh, Jr., Beth M. Duncan, for appellant.

Charles R. Floyd, Jr., Peachtree City, Deborah M. Floyd, for appellees.

BARNES, Judge.

Following the grant of its application for interlocutory appeal, Crisp Regional Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ("Crisp Regional") challenges the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment on Ernest and Rose Johnson's claims for negligence, wrongful death, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Lucille Davis. Davis died while in the care of Crisp Regional.

Crisp Regional contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment without deciding: (1) whether this is a medical malpractice case requiring the Johnsons to rebut Crisp Regional's expert testimony with their own expert testimony, (2) whether punitive damages can be awarded against a hospital authority, (3) whether punitive damages may be awarded in a wrongful death action, (4) whether its actions were sufficiently egregious to constitute infliction of emotional distress under Georgia law, and (5) whether Crisp Regional's conduct authorized the imposition of punitive damages. Crisp Regional also contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment without addressing whether the allegations in the preface of the Johnsons' complaint were actionable under Georgia law. While we find that under our law Crisp Regional was entitled to summary judgment on the Johnsons' negligence and wrongful death claims and cannot be held liable for punitive damages, we further find that the trial court did not err by denying summary judgment on the emotional distress claims.

Ernest and Rose Johnson, the plaintiffs below, brought suit as executors of the estate of Lucille Davis against Crisp Regional, contending its negligent care of Davis caused her to fall and suffer severe injuries that led to her death. The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, wrongful death, and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

1. The standards applicable to motions for summary judgment are announced in Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the party opposing the motion should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp., 187 Ga.App. 594, 595-596, 370 S.E.2d 843 (1988). When reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, 229 Ga.App. 160, 163(1), 493 S.E.2d 540 (1997).

2. Giving the Johnsons the benefit of all reasonable doubt and construing the evidence and all inferences and conclusions from the evidence in their favor, the record shows that Davis was a resident in Crisp Regional, a long-term nursing care facility. She entered the facility in 1989 as a kidney patient needing help with daily living and remained a patient until she died in 1998.

Davis received dialysis treatments at an outside facility, and usually was in a weakened condition when she returned and had fallen in December 1996 and April 1997, following dialysis treatment.

In August 1997, Davis returned from dialysis and again did not feel well. She told the nurse on duty of this. According to the nurse, when she turned to get a blood pressure cuff, Davis got up from a chair and tried to walk to her room, but fell.¹ After her fall, Davis was a quadriplegic.

In support of their claim for negligence and wrongful death, the Johnsons allege that Crisp Regional's staff knew, and it was obvious, that Davis was very weak when she got back from dialysis and needed assistance. Thus, the nursing staff should have assisted Davis to her room, and their failure to do so constituted negligence. The Johnsons further assert that as a result of the fall, Davis's medical condition and general health declined substantially and ultimately resulted in her death.

Crisp Regional asserts that this is a claim for medical malpractice, which must fail because it produced an expert's affidavit stating that it was not negligent and the Johnsons failed to produce expert testimony showing that Crisp Regional was in some respect negligent. See Sparks v. Southwest Community Hosp., 195 Ga.App. 858, 395 S.E.2d 68 (1990). The Johnsons contend, however, that the claim sounds in simple negligence only, and the fact that the injury occurred in a medical setting does not make this a medical malpractice case. See Candler Gen. Hosp. v. McNorrill, 182 Ga.App. 107, 109(2), 354 S.E.2d 872 (1987).

We find that this is a professional malpractice action. The question is whether, based on Davis's physical condition after returning from dialysis, the nurse was required to give her immediate assistance, or whether the nurse could delay the assistance until she secured a blood pressure cuff. "Whether an action alleges professional malpractice or simple negligence depends on whether the professional's alleged negligence required the exercise of professional judgment and skill." Mendoza v. Pennington, 239 Ga.App. 300(1), 519 S.E.2d 715 (1999). Whether a complaint alleges ordinary negligence or professional malpractice is a question of law for the court. Dent v. Mem. Hosp. of Adel, 270 Ga. 316, 317, 509 S.E.2d 908 (1998).

Questions of this nature, including whether a wheelchair was required, "are decisions which normally require the evaluation of the medical condition of a particular patient and, therefore, the application of professional knowledge, skill, and experience." Dent v. Mem. Hosp., supra, 270 Ga. at 318, 509 S.E.2d 908. Therefore, we find that the Johnsons were required to rebut Crisp Regional's expert testimony with expert testimony of their own. Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406, 408, 249 S.E.2d 45 (1978). Because they failed to do so, the trial court erred by denying Crisp Regional's motion for summary judgment on the Johnsons' negligence claim and on their wrongful death claim which is based on Crisp Regional's negligence causing Davis's fall.

3. The infliction of emotional distress allegations concern Crisp Regional's actions following Davis's fall in August 1997. Crisp Regional contends that its actions were not sufficient to constitute actionable conduct under this theory of liability. In support of their claim for infliction of emotional distress, the Johnsons allege that Davis was not allowed to return to her old room after being at the hospital for several weeks following her fall, and that her clothes and belongings were left in boxes in the hallway. They allege Davis was treated differently after her fall, that she was not fed occasionally because the staff would not take the time to assist her with eating, and that ultimately a feeding tube was inserted so the staff could avoid having to take the time to assist in feeding Davis.

To prevail on allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Johnsons must show that Crisp Regional by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Davis. Yarbray v. Southern Bell Tel. &c. Co., 261 Ga. 703, 706(2), 409 S.E.2d 835 (1991). To support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct complained of must have been extreme and outrageous and the emotional distress must have been severe. Id. Further,

[w]hether a claim rises to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law. [Cit.] If the evidence shows that reasonable persons might find the presence of extreme and outrageous conduct and resultingly severe emotional distress, the jury then must find the facts and make its own determination. [Cits.]

Id. "Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as...