Opensided Mri Of Atlanta v. Chandler, No. S09G1945.
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BENHAM |
| Citation | 696 S.E.2d 640,287 Ga. 406 |
| Docket Number | No. S09G1945. |
| Decision Date | 28 June 2010 |
| Parties | OPENSIDED MRI OF ATLANTA, LLC et al.v.CHANDLER et al. |
287 Ga. 406
696 S.E.2d 640
OPENSIDED MRI OF ATLANTA, LLC et al.
v.
CHANDLER et al.
No. S09G1945.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 28, 2010.
Barry L. Zimmerman, Norcross, for appellee.
BENHAM, Justice.
This appeal arises from an action for negligence related to injuries sustained by appellee Ollie Mae Chandler when she fell at appellants' medical office.1 On April 11, 2007, appellees filed a negligence complaint, but did not attach an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a) when pursuing a claim for professional negligence. Appellants filed an answer on May 24, 2007, raising a defense of dismissal based on appellees' noncompliance with OCGA § 9-11-9.1,2 but appellants did not file a motion to dismiss until October 29, 2007. On November 30, 2007, appellees voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice. A few weeks later on December 12, 2007, appellees re-filed their complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-2-61 and attached an expert affidavit. On January 18, 2008, appellants filed their answer to the renewed complaint and re-filed their motion to dismiss. In August 2008, the trial court dismissed the case based on appellees' failure to file their expert affidavit with the original complaint and because the limitations period had run.3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and found that dismissal for failure to file an expert affidavit was premature because it was unclear whether the complaint only sounded in professional negligence which required an expert affidavit or also contained claims of ordinary negligence which would not require an expert affidavit. Chandler v. Opensided MRI of Atlanta, LLC, 299 Ga.App. 145(1), 682 S.E.2d 165 (2009). The Court of Appeals further determined that even assuming the complaint set out a claim for professional negligence, appellants waived any objection to appellees' failure to file an expert affidavit with the original complaint because appellants did not file a motion to dismiss contemporaneously with their answer to the original complaint as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1. Id. at 147-150, 682 S.E.2d 165. Finally, the Court of Appeals determined that the failure to file an expert affidavit rendered the original complaint voidable rather than void and, as such, the plaintiffs were not precluded from renewing their action after the statute of limitation had run pursuant to OCGA § 9-2-61. Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deal v. Coleman, Nos. S13A1084
...attribute to the statute its plain meaning, and our search for statutory meaning is at an end. See Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010). Here, OCGA § 50–18–72(a)(47) naturally and reasonably admits of only one meaning, and it is not the one that the ......
-
Keaton v. the State., No. A11A0566.
...is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”); see also Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010) (When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we must give those words their plain meaning.); Chase v. S......
-
Ne. Atlanta Bonding Co. v. State , No. A10A2089.
...and if those words are clear and unambiguous, [308 Ga.App. 578] the search also must end there. See Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010) (“When a statute contains clear and unambiguous language, such language will be given its plain meaning and will ......
-
Strength v. Lovett, No. A11A0672.
...language, such language will be given its plain meaning and will be applied accordingly.” Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010). Notwithstanding the plain meaning of the statute, the Sheriff points to our decision in Pearson v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga......
-
Deal v. Coleman, Nos. S13A1084
...attribute to the statute its plain meaning, and our search for statutory meaning is at an end. See Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010). Here, OCGA § 50–18–72(a)(47) naturally and reasonably admits of only one meaning, and it is not the one that the ......
-
Keaton v. the State., No. A11A0566.
...is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”); see also Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010) (When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we must give those words their plain meaning.); Chase v. S......
-
Ne. Atlanta Bonding Co. v. State , No. A10A2089.
...and if those words are clear and unambiguous, [308 Ga.App. 578] the search also must end there. See Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010) (“When a statute contains clear and unambiguous language, such language will be given its plain meaning and will ......
-
Strength v. Lovett, No. A11A0672.
...language, such language will be given its plain meaning and will be applied accordingly.” Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407, 696 S.E.2d 640 (2010). Notwithstanding the plain meaning of the statute, the Sheriff points to our decision in Pearson v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga......