St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. v. Mattair

Decision Date07 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 32348,32348
CitationSt. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. v. Mattair, 238 S.E.2d 366, 239 Ga. 674 (Ga. 1977)
PartiesST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC. v. Norma MATTAIR et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, F. Clay Bush, Adams, Adams, Brennan & Gardner, Atlanta, Edward T. Brennan, Kathleen Horne, Savannah, for appellant.

Jack Spalding Schroder, Jr., Michael D. Sabbath, Jones, Bird & Howell, Atlanta, amicus curiae.

Joseph O. Saseen, Savannah, Willis J. Richardson, Jr., Savannah, for appellees.

HALL, Justice.

We granted the application for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Mattair v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., 141 Ga.App. 597, 234 S.E.2d 537, 538 (1977).

Respondent sued the hospital for damages which arose out of an alleged injury in 1972. A suit was filed in 1975. The amended petition alleged a claim in tort and for breach of contract. The trial court sustained the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon the two-year statute of limitations for tort. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.

1. Code Ann. § 3-1102 (effective July 1, 1976) provides a two-year statute of limitations for an "action for medical malpractice." This limitation is applicable whether the action for medical malpractice is in tort or contract. The Court of Appeals held that this section "applies peculiarly to the relationship between physician and patient and affects no other actions," and thus refused to apply it. We disagree with this interpretation of the statute, for the term "action for medical malpractice" is defined (for purposes of § 3-1102 et seq.) by Code Ann. § 3-1101. This definition expressly includes "any claim for damages resulting from the death of or injury to any person arising out of . . . care or service rendered by any public or private hospital . . ." Thus, Code Ann. § 3-1102 does apply to actions against hospitals for malpractice.

But the Court of Appeals was correct in refusing to apply the statute in this case, since § 3-1102 did not operate to bar any action filed before July 1, 1976. Code Ann. § 3-1105.

2. We affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that malpractice actions may be brought in tort or in contract against a hospital or a physician.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except UNDERCOFLER, P. J., who dissents as to Division 2 only.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Atakpa v. Perimeter Ob-Gyn Associates, PC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 30, 1994
    ...F.Supp. 519, 520 (S.D.Ga.1969) (sustaining malpractice action brought in contract against physician); St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. v. Mattair, 239 Ga. 674, 675, 238 S.E.2d 366 (1977) (sustaining malpractice actions brought in contract against hospital or physician). Although Perimeter is a p......
  • Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1983
    ...Ga.App. 420, 241 S.E.2d 303 (1977); Mattair v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 141 Ga.App. 597, 234 S.E.2d 537, affd. St. Joseph's Hospital v. Mattair, 239 Ga. 674, 238 S.E.2d 366 (1977). Accordingly, appellant had one year within which to bring his action for damage to his reputation, two years to ......
  • Hurt v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1977
    ... ... bed of the decedent when she was carried from the house to the hospital and was positively identified as such by one of the investigating ... ...
  • Allrid v. Emory University
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1983
    ...other than physicians. See, e.g., Shannon v. Thornton, 155 Ga.App. 670, 272 S.E.2d 535 (1980) (dentists); St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. v. Mattair, 239 Ga. 674, 238 S.E.2d 366 (1977) (hospitals)." Faser, supra 674 F.2d at We find the federal court's reasoning persuasive. A hospital supplying ......
  • Get Started for Free