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.
Ambrose v. Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta, Inc.
Citations: 325 Ga. App. 557; 754 S.E.2d 135; 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 59; 2014 WL 169870; 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 19Docket: A13A1917
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; January 16, 2014; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Henley J. Ambrose filed a lawsuit against St. Joseph’s Hospital of Atlanta, Inc., claiming he suffered burns during spinal surgery due to a microscope used by the hospital. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that Ambrose failed to submit an expert affidavit as required for medical malpractice claims. Ambrose appealed, arguing that his claims were based on ordinary negligence related to the hospital's provision of unsafe equipment, not professional malpractice. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, clarifying that whether a claim constitutes ordinary negligence or professional malpractice is a legal question. The court emphasized that claims of ordinary negligence do not require an expert affidavit, as such claims do not invoke the necessity for professional judgment. The appellate court found that the allegations pertained to the hospital's general duty of care regarding equipment, rather than the specific conduct of medical professionals. Claims regarding employees' failure to follow instructions and hospitals not having suitable equipment pertain to ordinary negligence. However, if the negligence claim questions the appropriateness of a professional decision rather than the execution of that decision, it is classified as professional malpractice. An injury occurring in a hospital does not automatically imply medical malpractice. Ambrose argues that the hospital failed to uphold ordinary care by providing unsafe equipment, not updating software, and not warning the surgeon of risks associated with the equipment. Viewing these claims favorably for Ambrose, they do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice. Issues such as failure to replace disposable parts in surgical instruments indicate simple negligence, for which the hospital could be liable. The decision to modify equipment, like removing a heat shield, may not involve medical judgment, while decisions impacting lighting during surgery could. Ambrose's claims are based on simple negligence, making it erroneous to dismiss his complaint. He also asserts that an affidavit is unnecessary as his case does not involve professional malpractice per OCGA 9-11-9.1 (g). The statute requires an affidavit only when a facility's liability is tied to a health care professional's actions. Since Ambrose's allegations focus on the hospital's provision of defective equipment, OCGA 9-11-9.1 does not apply. Consequently, the dismissal of his case is reversed. The ruling clarifies that a plaintiff must file an expert affidavit only when alleging malpractice against licensed health care professionals or facilities based on such actions, and failure to file the affidavit can lead to dismissal if challenged appropriately. Ambrose's claims center on the hospital's negligence rather than the surgeon's actions.