Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brown v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C.
Citations: 643 S.E.2d 740; 284 Ga. App. 244; 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 408; 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 128Docket: A06A2037
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 15, 2007; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Doris Jeanette Brown filed a dental malpractice lawsuit against Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., Coast Dental Services, Inc., and Dr. James J. Choi. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Coast Dental, concluding that Brown's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, applying the "any evidence" standard of review, which requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Brown visited Coast Dental in October 2000, where Dr. Choi proposed installing two dental bridges. Following the preparation and installation of these bridges from December 2000 to January 2001, Brown reported experiencing pain and sensitivity to heat and cold. However, she filed her malpractice complaint on January 24, 2003, which was more than two years after the last procedure on January 3, 2001. The court determined that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases in Georgia is two years, commencing when the injury symptoms first manifest. Despite Brown's assertion that her symptoms began on January 25, 2001, her testimony indicated she had experienced pain since the installation of the bridges, leading to the conclusion that her symptoms likely arose before that date. Therefore, the trial court appropriately granted a directed verdict based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The appellate court also noted it would not address Brown's argument regarding the trial court's partial directed verdict on future dental expenses, given the ruling on the statute of limitations. The judgment was affirmed, with Judges Smith and Phipps concurring.