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.
Memorial Hospital of Adel, Inc. v. Dunn
Citations: 251 Ga. App. 399; 554 S.E.2d 548; 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2750; 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1030Docket: A01A1038; A01A1039; A01A1040
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; August 28, 2001; Georgia; State Appellate Court
On June 22, 2000, plaintiffs Alison and Randy Dunn initiated medical malpractice and loss of consortium claims against Memorial Hospital of Adel, Inc., A. J. Stone, CRNA, and Rodney D. Tyson, M.D., alleging improper anesthesia equipment placement during surgery on June 22, 1998. The plaintiffs failed to file the required expert affidavit with their complaint as mandated by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, instead invoking a provision that allows an extension for filing the affidavit within 45 days after the initial 10-day limitation period. Although they requested an additional 45 days on August 4, 2000, citing their treating physician’s withdrawal of support for the affidavit just days prior, they ultimately did not file the affidavit until October 6, 2000. Defendants opposed the extension but offered a 30-day compromise. The trial court, after a hearing, found good cause to extend the deadline to October 6, 2000, and certified the order for immediate review. Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the extension because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate good cause as required by the statute. However, the trial court had considered that the physician had previously assured the plaintiffs he would provide the affidavit and that plaintiffs' counsel actively sought the affidavit during the extension period. The court found that plaintiffs acted promptly upon learning of the physician’s refusal and secured another expert to file an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating it would not substitute its judgment unless there was a clear abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case. The court emphasized the importance of the trial court's discretion in such matters and acknowledged that there was evidence to support the court's decision to grant the extension. The judgments were affirmed, with the concurrence of Blackburn, C. J., and Mikell, J.