Gillis v. Goodgame
| Decision Date | 27 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S91G0973,S91G0973 |
| Citation | 262 Ga. 117,414 S.E.2d 197 |
| Parties | GILLIS v. GOODGAME, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Berrien L. Sutton, Sutton & Slocumb, Homerville, Ronald W. Hallman, Hallman & Associates, Claxton, for Gillis.
Walter W. Ballew, III, William H. Pinson, Jr., Beckmann & Pinson, P.C., Savannah, Terry A. Dillard, Dillard, Landers & Bower, Waycross, for Goodgame, et al.
David R. Smith, Savannah, Atty. Register.
Nancy Gillis sued Robert Smith, a physician, and James Goodgame, a radiological physicist, alleging "medical malpractice and negligence" in that they had "failed to exercise that degree of medical care, diligence and skill ordinarily employed by physicians in general." Gillis alleged that she sustained injuries from the "unnecessary and excessive" radiation therapy with which Smith and Goodgame had treated her. 1
Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1, Gillis attached to her complaint the affidavit of an expert which addressed only the alleged professional malpractice of Smith. Goodgame moved to dismiss the claim against him for failure to attach an expert affidavit alleging that he had committed a negligent act or omission.
The trial court concluded that Goodgame, who is not a physician, had engaged in the practice of medicine as contemplated by OCGA § 43-34-20(3), and therefore an expert's affidavit was required under OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a). The trial court granted Goodgame's motion to dismiss.
A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed, Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga.App. 413, 404 S.E.2d 815 (1991). The Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of whether Goodgame was practicing medicine such that an expert affidavit would be required, Housing Authority of Savannah v. Greene, 259 Ga. 435, 383 S.E.2d 867 (1989), but held that OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) applies to Goodgame because he is a "professional" as a matter of law. We granted certiorari to determine whether OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) required Gillis to file an expert affidavit with her complaint against Goodgame. We now reverse.
The record shows that Goodgame has an undergraduate degree in physics and math, as well as a master's degree in physics. At the time of Gillis's alleged injuries he was associated with Dr. Smith as a radiological physicist. According to Goodgame, his field of expertise is therapeutic radiology, or the physics which involves the use of radiation in the medical treatment of patients. In his deposition Goodgame testified that his job involves calibrating the cobalt machine which is used to deliver radiation to the patient, and performing quality control services on any machines used in this therapy. He further testified that the treating physician determines how much radiation the patient needs, and Goodgame then calibrates the machine to deliver this amount. According to Goodgame, a radiological physicist is not required to be licensed by any state or federal examining board.
Based on Goodgame's description of his job, we find that he was not practicing medicine within the meaning of OCGA § 43-34-20(3). The issue then becomes whether the affidavit requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 apply to radiological physicists.
While OCGA § 9-11-9.1 was enacted as Section 3 of the Medical Malpractice Act of 1987 (Ga.L.1987, p. 887 et seq.), its affidavit requirements have been held applicable to nonmedical actions. See cases cited in Kneip v. Southern Engineering, 260 Ga. 409, 395 S.E.2d 809 (1990). However, this court has never held OCGA § 9-11-9.1 applicable to actions against occupations which are not enumerated in OCGA § 14-7-2(2), or occupations which are not subject to the respective licensing and regulation requirements of OCGA §§ 14-10-2(2) and 43-1-24. We note that the term "professional" is no where defined in the code other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lutz v. Foran
...enumerated in OCGA § 14-7-2(2) or subject to licensing and regulation under OCGA §§ 14-10-2(2) and 43-1-24. Gillis v. Goodgame, 262 Ga. 117, 414 S.E.2d 197 (1992). A harbor pilot is a member of a profession listed in § 14-7-2. Therefore, Lutz must file an affidavit with his complaint if the......
-
Abrams & Wofsy v. Renaissance Inv. Corp.
...185 Ga.App. at 352, 364 S.E.2d 87. In Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga. App. 413, 404 S.E.2d 815 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 262 Ga. 117, 414 S.E.2d 197 (1992), the Georgia Court of Appeals defined "malpractice" a dereliction from professional duty whether intentional, criminal, or merely neg......
-
Chandler v. Koenig
...has some evidence of malpractice. Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga.App. 413, 416-417, 404 S.E.2d 815 (1991), rev'd. on other grounds, 262 Ga. 117, 414 S.E.2d 197 (1992). Accordingly, the trial court erred by finding the affidavit was insufficient and dismissing the complaint. I am authorized to s......
-
Minnix v. Department of Transp.
...requirement of Rule 9.1 would apply to the term "professional" as defined by OCGA §§ 14-7-2(2); 14-10-2(2); and 43-1-24. While the intent in Gillis was to create a bright line rule that would effectuate the legislative purpose of the statute, application of the rule in that case resulted in......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Jason Crawford
...at 206, 447 S.E.2d at 151. 46. 214 Ga. App. at 214-15, 447 S.E.2d at 62. 47. Id. 48. Id. at 215, 447 S.E.2d at 62. 49. Gillis v. Goodman, 262 Ga. 117, 118, 414 S.E.2d 197, 198 (1992). 50. Id. 51. See, e.g., HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Hampshire, 206 Ga. App. 108, 113, 424 S.E.2d 293, ......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams, Iii
...is a useless, self-defeating mess."). 80. See Tye v. Wilson, 208 Ga. App. 253, 256-57, 430 S.E.2d 129, 132 (Johnson, J., dissenting). 81. 262 Ga. 117, 414 S.E.2d 197 (1992). 82. O.C.G.A. Sec. 14-7-2(2) (1994). 83. Id. Sec. 14-10-2(2). 84. Id. Sec. 43-1-24 (1991). 85. 262 Ga. at 118, 414 S.E......