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.
Tice v. Cole
Citations: 537 S.E.2d 713; 246 Ga. App. 135; 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3310; 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 940Docket: A00A1021
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; July 21, 2000; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Randall Tice appeals a jury verdict favoring defendants Jim Cole, D.D.S., and Marietta Dental Associates, P.C. in a dental malpractice case. Tice claims errors by the trial court in allowing cross-examination of his expert witness regarding disciplinary complaints against him, admitting certain evidence, and instructing the jury on foreseeability. Additionally, he argues the court wrongfully granted partial summary judgment on negligence claims that were allegedly time-barred. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decisions. Evidence presented indicated Tice first sought treatment for severe periodontal disease in 1983 but failed to follow dental care recommendations, leading to the extraction of multiple teeth over a decade. Following a tooth extraction in July 1993, Tice later developed a brain abscess, which he attributed to negligence in treatment and the failure to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics. The trial court ruled that negligence claims before July 1993 were barred by the statute of limitations, and a jury ultimately found in favor of the defendants after trial. Tice challenges the trial court's admission of documents related to administrative complaints against Fish, a dentist who testified that Cole breached the standard of care in treating Tice. During cross-examination, Fish acknowledged prior breaches of standard of care in three separate complaints, providing details about each. Tice filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence based on relevancy, but the court ruled the evidence was relevant, and Tice's objection did not preserve the issue for appeal. The trial court's decision was found to be within its discretion, and any error regarding the authentication of the documents was deemed harmless since similar evidence was already presented through Fish's testimony. Tice also contends that the jury instruction regarding negligence in dental malpractice cases was erroneous. The instruction stated that a defendant cannot be found negligent based solely on hindsight if the initial assessment met reasonable medical standards. Tice's objections to this charge were not preserved for appeal, as he did not specify the grounds for his objection clearly during the trial, failing to meet the required standards for review. Additionally, Tice argues that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment on claims of negligence that occurred before July 1993, asserting these were time-barred. However, Tice's own complaint indicated that it was filed within ten days of the relevant statute of limitations, thereby admitting that claims prior to July 1993 were indeed time-barred. The trial court determined that claims arising prior to July 1993 were barred by the statute of limitations and upheld the motion for partial summary judgment. Tice's main allegation centered on the improper extraction of his teeth, specifically the failure to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics, which he claimed resulted in a brain abscess. The partial summary judgment did not prevent him from pursuing this negligence claim. At trial, the jury was presented with evidence regarding Tice’s dental history from 1983 to 1993 and the specifics of the extraction procedure. After reviewing the evidence, the jury ruled in favor of Cole, and the judgment was affirmed with concurrence from Justices Eldridge and Barnes.