James v. Hospital Authority of Bainbridge, A05A1628.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | Bernes |
| Citation | 629 S.E.2d 472 |
| Parties | JAMES v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF BAINBRIDGE et al. |
| Docket Number | No. A05A1628.,A05A1628. |
| Decision Date | 23 March 2006 |
v.
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF BAINBRIDGE et al.
Page 473
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 474
Kenneth J. Rajotte, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Michael S. Meyer von Bremen, William B. Mallow, Langley & Lee, Carl R. Langley, Albany, for appellees.
BERNES, Judge.
Bobby L. James appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his complaint against the Hospital Authority of the City of Bainbridge d/b/a/ Memorial Hospital and Manor ("Memorial Hospital") and Frederick Brown Lutz, M.D. based on his failure to timely file an expert affidavit in support of his professional malpractice claims. See OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a). James contends the trial court erred because he alleged claims for simple negligence which fall outside the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a). He also contends that the trial court erred in failing to abide by an automatic bankruptcy stay. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On November 27, 2001, James presented at the Memorial Hospital emergency room with complaints of abdominal pain, abdominal cramps, and constipation. James was treated by Dr. Lutz, who diagnosed him with diverticulitis, prescribed a medication, and then discharged him. On November 29, 2001, James returned to Memorial Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery for a gangrenous perforated appendix and an intra-abdominal abscess. Thereafter, James was transferred to another hospital where he was treated for acute renal failure secondary to his perforated appendix and abdominal sepsis.
On November 25, 2003, James filed his complaint, alleging that Dr. Lutz and Memorial Hospital "negligently failed to evaluate and treat [him] on November 27, 2001," and that their "mis-diagnosis" caused him to suffer certain injuries and damages. James specifically alleged that his injuries "were caused by Defendants' failure to properly evaluate [him], failure to properly diagnose [his] condition, and failure to properly treat [him]."
When James filed his complaint, he failed to submit an expert affidavit in support of his claims of professional negligence as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a). As a result, Dr. Lutz and Memorial Hospital moved to dismiss the complaint. Their motions were ultimately granted by the trial court in its order entered on March 4, 2005. In its order, the trial court also included a finding that "Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there are any bankruptcy proceedings which operate as a stay of this case."
1. James' first enumeration of error concerns the trial court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to submit a timely expert affidavit. Significantly, James does not challenge the trial court's dismissal of his professional negligence claims. Rather, James' sole argument is that his complaint should have been construed as also alleging claims of simple negligence which did not require submission of an expert affidavit and thus were not subject to dismissal.
Under OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a), "[i]n any action for damages alleging professional malpractice, . . . the plaintiff shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of an expert competent to testify, which affidavit shall set forth specifically at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim." OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) (2003).1 By negative implication, an expert affidavit is not required for claims averred in a complaint that are based on acts or omissions constituting
Page 475
simple negligence rather than professional malpractice. See Shirley v. Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta/Lowndes County, 263 Ga.App. 408, 409(1), 587 S.E.2d 873 (2003). Whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute simple negligence or professional malpractice is a question of law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKuhen v. TransformHealthRX, Inc., A16A0176
...9–11–9.1 and their medical malpractice claims fail as a matter of law. James v. Hosp. Auth. of City of Bainbridge , 278 Ga.App. 657, 658, 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006) (noting the requirement for an expert's affidavit to bring a medical malpractice claim). We therefore affirm the trial court's gran......
-
Giddens v. Med. Ctr. of Cent. Ga., A19A2439
..., 288 Ga. App. 659, 661-662, 655 S.E.2d 251 (2007). See James v. Hosp. Auth. of the City of Bainbridge , 278 Ga. App. 657, 659 (1), 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006) ("whether an act or omission sounds in simple negligence or medical malpractice depends on whether the conduct, even if supervisory or ad......
-
Zeal Global Servs. Private Ltd. v. SunTrust Bank, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00908-AT
...Zeal has failed to do so here. Without viably alleging a conspiracy, Zeal cannot impute the fraudsters’ conduct to the Banks. Parrish , 629 S.E.2d at 472 (finding that defendant was not liable under theory of civil conspiracy because there was no evidence that he knew of alleged co-conspira......
-
Gaulden v. Green, No. A12A1872.
...negligence is a question of law for the court to resolve. James v. Hosp. Auth. of the City of Bainbridge, 278 Ga.App. 657, 659(1), 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006). Whether a claim is for ordinary or professional negligence “depends on whether the conduct, even if supervisory or administrative, involv......
-
McKuhen v. TransformHealthRX, Inc., A16A0176
...9–11–9.1 and their medical malpractice claims fail as a matter of law. James v. Hosp. Auth. of City of Bainbridge , 278 Ga.App. 657, 658, 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006) (noting the requirement for an expert's affidavit to bring a medical malpractice claim). We therefore affirm the trial court's gran......
-
Giddens v. Med. Ctr. of Cent. Ga., A19A2439
..., 288 Ga. App. 659, 661-662, 655 S.E.2d 251 (2007). See James v. Hosp. Auth. of the City of Bainbridge , 278 Ga. App. 657, 659 (1), 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006) ("whether an act or omission sounds in simple negligence or medical malpractice depends on whether the conduct, even if supervisory or ad......
-
Zeal Global Servs. Private Ltd. v. SunTrust Bank, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00908-AT
...Zeal has failed to do so here. Without viably alleging a conspiracy, Zeal cannot impute the fraudsters’ conduct to the Banks. Parrish , 629 S.E.2d at 472 (finding that defendant was not liable under theory of civil conspiracy because there was no evidence that he knew of alleged co-conspira......
-
Gaulden v. Green, No. A12A1872.
...negligence is a question of law for the court to resolve. James v. Hosp. Auth. of the City of Bainbridge, 278 Ga.App. 657, 659(1), 629 S.E.2d 472 (2006). Whether a claim is for ordinary or professional negligence “depends on whether the conduct, even if supervisory or administrative, involv......