Dr. failed to tell pt. of cancer: 'limited exception' to limitations applied.
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. The court held, inter alia, that while ordinarily, Georgia's two-year statute of limitations applies in medical malpractice cases, it would not apply in this case. Generally, in malpractice cases involving a misdiagnosis that results in the failure to properly treat a condition, the "injury" occurs at the time of the misdiagnosis. This is because the patient usually continues to experience pain, suffering, or economic loss from the time of the misdiagnosis to until the medical problem is properly diagnosed and treated. Under these circumstances, "the misdiagnosis itself is the injury and not the subsequent discovery of the proper diagnosis." However, the court noted that in Georgia the courts had carved out a "limited exception" in cases in which a misdiagnosis and failure to provide proper treatment results in the development of a new and different injury than that which existed at the time of the misdiagnosis.
THE COURT HELD THAT IN 'LIMITED EXCEPTION' CASES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM THE DATE THE INJURY IS 'DISCOVERED.' When a misdiagnosis results in subsequent injury that is difficult or impossible to date precisely, the statute of limitations runs from the date the symptoms attributable to the new injury are manifested to the plaintiff. The court noted that it had previously applied the 'limited exception' to cases involving the subsequent metastasis of an existing cancerous condition, most notably in the case of Whitaker v. Zirkle, 188 Ga. App. at 707-708(1) in which, the defendant physician allegedly failed to properly diagnose and treat a patient's cancerous mole. The patient experienced no new symptoms for seven years after the misdiagnosis, but then was diagnosed with metastatic cancer after developing nodules and bruises. The patient sued the physician, claiming that her injury was the metastatic cancer and that the metastasis would not have occurred if the cancerous mole had been properly diagnosed and treated at the time of the original biopsy. The court, in affirming denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, held that the injury complained of was the metastasis which would not have occurred if the cancer had been properly diagnosed and treated at the time of the original biopsy. Ward v. Bergen. No. A05A1688(Ga. App. 01/19/2006) S.E.2d--GA
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Tammelleo, A. David|
|Publication:||Medical Law's Regan Report|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Does collateral source rule apply to bills paid by Medicaid?|
|Next Article:||Failure to object to adverse rulings at trial precluded appeal.|