MyFamilyDoc, LLC v. Johnston
| Docket Number | A22A1714 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Parties | MYFAMILYDOC, LLC et al. v. JOHNSTON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wayne D. McGrew III, Andrew Michael Bagley, McGrew Miller Bomar & Bagley, for Appellant.
Steven R. Wisebram, Atlanta, Lee Patrick Gutschenritter, Finch McCranie, for Appellee.
Margaret Johnston, the surviving spouse and administrator of the estate of decedent Wayne Johnston, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Ravin Talati, nurse practitioner Mary Chastain, and MyFamilyDoc, LLC, alleging that the defendants had breached the standard of care by failing to timely review laboratory results showing that the decedent was severely anemic, to a degree that constituted a medical emergency. The defendants filed joint motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony regarding causation. The trial court denied the motions; and the defendants brought this appeal, challenging the denial of summary judgment to Chastain based on the trial court's finding that there is a question of fact as to whether she owed a duty to the decedent and contesting the court's admission of the expert testimony.
We reverse the denial of summary judgment to Chastain because she has pointed to undisputed evidence showing that she owed no duty of care to the decedent. But we affirm the trial court's refusal to exclude the expert testimony because the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing such testimony.
GeorgiaCarry.Org v. Atlanta Botanical Garden , 306 Ga. 829, 830 (1), 834 S.E.2d 27 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). On appeal, "[w]e review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, and we must view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." In the Matter of Tapley , 308 Ga. 577, 842 S.E.2d 36 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence shows that Wayne Johnston began receiving medical care from Dr. Talati at his MyFamilyDoc practice in July 2017. On August 27, 2018, Johnston, who had been experiencing fatigue and shortness of breath, was seen by Dr. Talati at MyFamilyDoc. Dr. Talati recommended that Johnston return the next morning to have his blood drawn for testing, and a follow-up appointment with Dr. Talati was scheduled for September 4. The next morning, August 28, Johnston had his blood drawn at MyFamilyDoc, and the samples were sent to an outside laboratory for testing. On August 29, the laboratory electronically transmitted the test results, showing that Johnston was anemic, to MyFamilyDoc.
Dr. Talati and nurse practitioner Chastain were the only medical providers at MyFamilyDoc who were responsible for reviewing patient lab results, but neither of them looked at Johnston's lab results when they arrived from the laboratory. According to Dr. Talati, he would have reviewed the results on the morning of Johnston's follow-up visit with him on September 4. But Johnston died prior to that appointment, and Dr. Talati did not view the test results until after he had been notified of Johnston's death. After viewing the test results, Dr. Talati called Margaret Johnston, offered his condolences, and told her that the laboratory results showed that her husband had been anemic.
In seeking summary judgment, Chastain claims that she had no duty to review Johnston's blood test results because he was not her patient. See Herrington v. Gaulden , 294 Ga. 285, 286, 751 S.E.2d 813 (2013) (); Curmode v. Alsbrooks , 365 Ga. App. 824, 880 S.E.2d 320 (2022) (). Chastain has pointed to the absence of evidence in the record showing such a duty arising from a medical provider-patient relationship between her and Johnston, noting plaintiff Margaret Johnston's deposition testimony admitting that although she was present for her husband's medical appointments, she had "no idea" if he had ever received treatment from Chastain.
In addition to the absence of evidence showing a provider-patient relationship, Chastain has also cited specific evidence demonstrating that Johnston was not her patient. In her deposition, Chastain testified not only that she had not seen Johnston at the office, but that she had never even met him. Chastain explained that she and Dr. Talati were the only providers at MyFamilyDoc who were qualified to evaluate patients; that they had separate patient schedules, so she saw her patients and Dr. Talati saw his; that they each reviewed laboratory results for their own patients; and that she would only review laboratory results for Dr. Talati's patients if he specifically asked her to do so or if the laboratory called the office to report critical test results and she was the first provider available to review them. With regard to Johnston, Chastain testified that she "never saw him," that she "didn't take care of him," that she "didn't order his labs," that she "never talked to Dr. Talati about him," and that she "never discussed [his] care with anybody." As for Johnston's last visit with Dr. Talati on August 27, 2018, the undisputed evidence, including the depositions of Margaret Johnston and Dr. Talati, shows that Johnston was not seen by Chastain and that he was seen only by Dr. Talati after a medical assistant had obtained Johnston's vital information.
A defendant seeking summary judgment may demonstrate [that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law] by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff's claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims. Where a defendant moving for summary judgment discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.
Montgomery v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. , 360 Ga. App. 587, 588 (1), 859 S.E.2d 130 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted).
Because Chastain has presented evidence negating the essential element of duty arising from a provider-patient relationship and demonstrated the absence of evidence showing that she owed a duty to the decedent, appellee Margaret Johnston must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. In attempting to meet this burden, she has not argued or cited evidence showing that Dr. Talati specifically asked Chastain to review Johnston's test results or that Chastain was the first provider available to review the critical results after a call from the laboratory. Rather, she claims that Dr. Talati deposed that Chastain had a duty to review Johnston's blood test results, citing his affirmative response to a question indicating that "responsibility for reviewing these lab results lies with either you or Mary Chastain, but one of the two of you is required to review completed lab results[.]" But the appellee has misconstrued Dr. Talati's testimony, which must be viewed in the context of his entire deposition. See Forrester v. Ga. Dept. of Human Svcs. , 308 Ga. App. 716, 728 (1) (a) (iv),, 708 S.E.2d 660 (2011) (); Berson v. American Golf Corp. , 265 Ga. App. 772, 774-775, 595 S.E.2d 622 (2004) ().
A review of Dr. Talati's entire deposition reveals that he confirmed that he and nurse practitioner Chastain saw their own patients, that Johnston was his patient, that he ordered Johnston's blood tests, and that he would have reviewed the laboratory results before Johnston's follow-up visit with him. While the portion of Dr. Talati's testimony cited above acknowledged that either he or Chastain was responsible for reviewing test results, it did not indicate that both of them bore such a responsibility or that Chastain had that responsibility in this case. On the contrary, it is apparent from a review of Dr. Talati's entire deposition that he, not Chastain, was the medical provider responsible for reviewing his patient Johnston's test results. Indeed, "when the [cited testimony is] viewed in the context of Dr. [Talati's] entire deposition, it is readily apparent that [he] was not referring to the specific [duty] that the [plaintiff] sought to attribute to [nurse practitioner]." Robles v. Yugueros , 343 Ga. App. 377, 386 (2) (b), 807 S.E.2d 110 (2017) (emphasis omitted).
Margaret Johnston also points to an audit trail indicating that Chastain accessed the decedent's chart on the last date he was seen by Dr. Talati. But she has cited no evidence showing that such access created a provider-patient relationship between Chastain and Johnston or a duty for Chastain to review Johnston's subsequent laboratory results. The only cited evidence explaining that audit trail came from Chastain's deposition testimony that if she accessed the chart, she did not mean to do so; that such access would have occurred accidentally while she was scrolling through the list of patients; and that she never saw anything in Johnston's chart. "Accordingly, even though the [audit trail shows that Chastain accessed Johnston's chart, it does] not ... establish that [she] treated [him or contravene the other] evidence negating an essential element of [...
To continue reading
Request your trial