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.
Willis v. COLUMBUS MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
Citations: 702 S.E.2d 673; 306 Ga. App. 331; 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3271; 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 932Docket: A10A1387
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; October 5, 2010; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Tracy and Lisa Willis appeal the dismissal of their medical malpractice lawsuit against Columbus Medical Center, Radiology Associates of Columbus, and Dr. Gilbert Maulsby due to want of prosecution, as mandated by Georgia law (OCGA 9-2-60(b) and 9-11-41(e)). The lawsuit, filed on November 12, 2002, alleged negligence in failing to diagnose a brain malformation in their son, leading to permanent injuries. To delay the trial, the Willises intended to gather more evidence of their son's injuries. In February 2005, a Mediation Order was issued, directing the Willises to file it with the court and the Office of Dispute Resolution, but the latter did not file the order due to its practice. As a result, no orders were recorded for over five years, leading to an automatic dismissal of the case. CMC notified the court of this dismissal in September 2008, but neither the Willises nor their counsel were informed. They only learned of the dismissal in October 2009, shortly before the five-year deadline. Although the trial court recognized the lack of notice violated OCGA 15-6-21(c) and set aside the dismissal, it ultimately ruled that the case's automatic dismissal remained valid because no written order had been filed as required by law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case again, citing the necessity of a properly entered order to toll the automatic dismissal. In Republic Claims Svc. Co. v. Hoyal, the court affirmed that a case was automatically dismissed due to the failure to file a written order with the clerk within the statutory timeframe, as mandated by OCGA 9-2-60(b) and 9-11-41(e). The court noted that such dismissals are mandatory and leave no discretion for reinstatement, regardless of the case's merits. The Willises' counsel mistakenly believed that a third party had filed the order, but this misunderstanding did not absolve them of their responsibility to ensure compliance with filing requirements. Established case law reinforces that the obligation to act rests with the parties involved. No timely renewal action was filed after the dismissal, further solidifying the court's decision. The judgment was thus affirmed by the judges.