Dalbey v. Banks
| Decision Date | 05 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 35407,35407 |
| Citation | 245 Ga. 162,264 S.E.2d 4 |
| Parties | DALBEY v. BANKS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Sidney F. Wheeler, Robert G. Tanner, Atlanta, for appellant.
E. Graydon Shuford, Decatur, for appellee.
Certiorari was granted to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Banks v. Dalbey, 150 Ga.App. 779, 258 S.E.2d 701 (1979), and to decide what statute of limitations is to apply in a medical malpractice case where a foreign object is left in the patient's body by a doctor during treatment to remove the foreign body.
Briefly repeating the facts stated by the Court of Appeals, Banks cut his hand on a ceramic vase on August 24, 1974. On that same day, Dalbey, a medical doctor, treated Banks and attempted to remove the glass from his wound. The cut healed and the treatment appeared successful. However, x-rays taken in June or July of 1976 revealed foreign objects in Banks' hand. When those objects were removed on April 19, 1977, they were found to be particles of ceramic glass. Banks filed a medical malpractice suit against Dalbey on April 29, 1977, alleging negligent treatment of the wound.
The trial court granted Dalbey's motion for summary judgment based on Code Ann. § 3-1102 which provides that an action for medical malpractice shall be brought within two years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the applicable section to be Code Ann. § 3-1103 which provides that,
After careful consideration, we find that the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Dalbey was correct. Accordingly, we reverse the holding by the majority of the Court of Appeals that Code Ann. § 3-1103 applies in cases such as this one, and adopt the position taken by Judge Birdsong in his dissent that Code Ann. § 3-1103 refers to objects placed in the patient's body during some medical procedure in such a fashion that the physician may be charged with knowledge that the object is lodged there.
Where a physician places a foreign object in his patient's body during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Litvak
...equal protection. The Allrid court decided that the classification was valid under the rational basis test: "In Dalbey v. Banks, 245 Ga. 162, 163-4, 264 S.E.2d 4 (1980), we held that '[w]hen a physician places a foreign object in his patient's body during treatment, he has actual knowledge ......
-
Deen v. Egleston
... ... of the wrongdoing. In such situations ... the danger of belated, false or frivolous ... claims is eliminated. Id. at 524-25 (quoting Dalbey v. Banks, ... 245 Ga. 162, 264 S.E.2d 4, 5 (1980)). The ... court's statement that the state legislature ... had a legitimate purpose in enacting ... ...
-
Norred v. Teaver
...[OCGA § 9–3–72].” Id. at 742–743(2), 295 S.E.2d 164.Whiddon also relied on the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Dalbey v. Banks, 245 Ga. 162, 264 S.E.2d 4 (1980). But Dalbey is distinguishable both factually and legally. The Supreme Court reversed this court's holding in Banks v. Dalbey,......
-
Miller v. Kitchens
...needle, is left in the plaintiff's body, the statute of limitation runs one year after discovery. OCGA § 9-3-72; Dalbey v. Banks, 245 Ga. 162, 163-164, 264 S.E.2d 4 (1980); Abend v. Klaudt, 243 Ga.App. 271, 272-273(1), 531 S.E.2d 722 The October 2, 1997 surgery was shown by Kitchens' eviden......