Yugueros v. Robles
Decision Date | 31 October 2016 |
Docket Number | S16G0619 |
Citation | 300 Ga. 58,793 S.E.2d 42 |
Parties | YUGUEROS v. ROBLES. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Thomas S. Carlock, Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP, 191 Peachtree Street N.E. Suite 3600, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Wayne D. McGrew III, Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP, 2600 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree, Center Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Michael Scott Bailey, Erica S. Jansen, Huff, Powell & Bailey, LLC, 999 Peachtree Street Suite 950, Atlanta, Georgia 30309–0000, for Appellant.
Brent J. Kaplan, Hilary Alison Wayne, Isenberg & Hewitt, P.C., 6600 Peachtree Dunwoody Road 600, Embassy Row, Suite 150, Atlanta, Georgia 30328, for Appellee.
This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Robles v. Yugueros , 335 Ga.App. 324, 779 S.E.2d 139 (2015), to determine whether that Court was correct in holding that deposition testimony of an organizational representative taken under OCGA § 9–11–30 (b) (6) may be admitted into evidence at trial under OCGA § 9–11–32 (a) (2), without regard to the rules of evidence governing admissibility of expert testimony, see OCGA § 24–7–702. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.
Iselda Moreno, wife of Rudy Robles, received liposuction
, buttock augmentation, and abdominoplasty surgery performed by Dr. Patricia Yugueros of Artisan Plastic Surgery, LLC ("Artisan") on June 24, 2009. Suffering abdominal pain, Moreno went to the emergency room at Gwinnett Medical Center ("GMC"), where Dr. Michael Violette ultimately discharged her after determining her abdominal x-ray was unremarkable. A GMC radiologist, Dr. James York, who later saw Moreno's abdominal x-ray, could not rule out the possibility of "free air" in her abdomen, which could be a normal post-operative condition or could indicate a more serious issue. He recommended a CT scan and posted this opinion in Moreno's electronic medical record.
Moreno's pain worsened and Robles contacted Dr. Yugueros on Moreno's behalf, who directed him to take Moreno to Northside Hospital, where Dr. Yugueros had privileges; there, Dr. Yugueros provided certain treatment, but did not order a CT scan
or procure the radiology report from GMC. Dr. Yugueros, in concert with various other medical professionals, ordered other tests, including an abdominal x-ray, which showed evidence of abdominal free air. Several hours later, on June 28, 2009, Moreno died. Robles sued Dr. Yugueros and Artisan, who designated Drs. Violette and York, as well as GMC, as potentially liable non-parties.
Robles served Artisan with a notice of deposition to depose a representative of the practice under OCGA § 9–11–30 (b) (6),1 and Artisan designated Dr. Diane Alexander as the deponent; Dr. Alexander is Artisan's founder and co-owner. During Dr. Alexander's deposition, the following occurred:
Q: Do you know who ordered a CT scan
?
[Counsel for Yugueros and counsel for Artisan each stated: "Object to the form," and Alexander was told she could answer the question.]
Artisan filed a motion in limine to exclude this testimony, and during a pre-trial hearing, and at trial,3 the defendants argued that Dr. Alexander's testimony as to the standard of care should be excluded because the requirements of OCGA § 24–7–702,4 which governs the admission of expert testimony in civil cases, had not been met, in part because Dr. Alexander had not been provided all the data necessary to form an opinion.5 The trial court agreed and excluded the testimony, and the jury returned a defense verdict.
Robles , supra at 328, 779 S.E.2d 139, the Court of Appeals stated that 6 Id. However, this statement by the Court of Appeals does not accurately reflect the law.
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 9–11–32 (a) (2) is simply one of those "following provisions"; it does not create a rule of evidence that allows any deposition taken under OCGA § 9–11–30 (b) (6) to be admitted at trial in its entirety as "an admission against interest," but provides for the admission of the deposition when that admission is permitted under relevant rules of evidence.7 And, when testifying as to the medical standard of care, OCGA § 24–7–702 is a relevant rule of evidence, and an appellate court is to uphold the trial court's decision on the admission of such evidence, absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. See Hankla v. Postell , 293 Ga. 692, 694–695, 749 S.E.2d 726 (2013).
Under OCGA § 24–7–702, it is the role of the trial court to act as a gatekeeper of expert testimony. See HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton–King , 287 Ga. 641, 645 (2), 697 S.E.2d 770 (2010). This role is not extinguished simply because deposition testimony, including expert testimony, is secured under OCGA § 9–11–30 (b) (6). Although Robles argues that the notice of deposition served on Artisan required that Artisan provide and prepare a witness as an expert, that Dr. Alexander possesses qualifications that could establish her as an expert witness, and that there was no proper objection to her qualifications, these matters were not addressed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and are beyond the scope of this Court's writ of certiorari. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that Court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.
All the Justices concur.
1 OCGA § 9–11–30 reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robles v. Yugueros
...Thomas S. Carlock, Wayne D. McGrew III, Neil Thomas Edwards, Erica S. Jansen, for Appellee. Barnes, Presiding Judge.In Yugueros v. Robles, 300 Ga. 58, 793 S.E.2d 42 (2016), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision in Robles v. Yugueros, 335 Ga. App. 324, 779 S.E.2d 139 (2015), the......
-
Roberts v. Quick RX Drugs, Inc.
...the trial court's decision on the admission of such evidence, absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Yugueros v. Robles, 300 Ga. 58, 67, 793 S.E.2d 42 (2016). In Georgia, the admission of expert testimony is governed by OCGA § 24-7-702 (b), which provides:If scientific, technical......
-
Emory Univ. v. Willcox
...causation."Under OCGA § 24-7-702, it is the role of the trial court to act as a gatekeeper of expert testimony." Yugueros v. Robles , 300 Ga. 58, 67, 793 S.E.2d 42 (2016). In this role, the trial court "assess[es] both the witness’ qualifications to testify in a particular area of expertise......
-
Nat'l Emergency Med. Servs. v. Smith
... ... "Under OCGA § 24-7-702, it is the role of the trial ... court to act as a gatekeeper of expert testimony." ... Yugueros v. Robles , 300 Ga. 58, 67 (793 S.E.2d 42) ... (2016). In its exercise of this role, the trial court must ... "assess both the witness' ... ...
-
50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
...next step. Georgia In Georgia, “it is the role of the trial court to act as a gatekeeper of expert testimony.” Yugueros v. Robles, 793 S.E.2d 42, 48 (Ga. 2016). “[T]he importance of the trial court’s gatekeeper role . . . cannot be overstated.” HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 697 S.E.2......
-
2017 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments
...prior opinion on the admissibility of 30(b)(6) deposition testimony at trial in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Yugueros v. Robles, 300 Ga. 58, 793 S.E.2d 42 (2016) that the use of such testimony at trial is limited by other applicable evidentiary rules, including the rules governin......