Allen v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Allen v. Wright

634 S.E.2d 518, 280 Ga. App. 554, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2393, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 893

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 2006

DocketA06A0662

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 634 S.E.2d 518 (Allen v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Wright, 634 S.E.2d 518, 280 Ga. App. 554, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2393, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 893 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

Adams, Judge.

Ernestine C. Wright filed a medical malpractice action against Thomas M. Allen, M.D., his professional corporation, Four Rivers Orthopedic Associates, P.C., and Meadows Regional Medical Center, Inc. Purporting to comply with OCGA§ 9-11-9.2, Wright executed an authorization to release her medical records and filed it contemporaneously with her complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the authorization executed by Wright did not comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2 in several respects, most notably in that it did not allow communications between defendants’ attorneys and plaintiffs treating physicians outside the presence of and without first notifying plaintiffs attorney. The trial court denied defendants’ motions, finding that OCGA § 9-11-9.2 was preempted by the [555]*555Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191; 42 USC § 1320d et seq. (“HIPAA”) and that OCGA § 9-11-9.2 “conflicts with the formal discovery methods recognized under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. . . .” We granted defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal to determine issues relating to the enforcement of OCGA § 9-11-9.2.

Decided July 14, 2006 Chambless, Higdon, Richardson, Katz & Griggs, David N. Nelson, Norman C. Pearson III, Martin Snow, John C. Daniel III, Richard A. Epps, Jr., for appellants. Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, William H. Pinson, Jr., for appellee. Love, Willingham, Peters, Gilleland & Monyak, Allen S. Willing-ham, Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah, Matthew G. Nasrallah, amici curiae.

1. The identical issue raised in this appeal — whether HIPAA preempts OCGA§ 9-11-9.2 — was recently decided as a matter of first impression by this Court in Northlake Med. Center v. Queen, 280 Ga. App. 510 (634 SE2d 486) (2006). We agree with the reasoning set forth in Division 2 of that opinion and find it to be controlling here. It follows that the trial court did not err by denying defendants’ motion to dismiss Wright’s complaint for failure to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2.

2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we need not address the parties’ remaining arguments.

Judgment affirmed.

Ruffin, C. J., Johnson, P. J., Barnes and Phipps, JJ., concur. Andrews, P. J., and Mikell, J., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams, Judge.

Ernestine C. Wright filed a medical malpractice action against Thomas M. Allen, M.D., his professional corporation, Four Rivers Orthopedic Associates, P.C., and Meadows Regional Medical Center, Inc. Purporting to comply with OCGA§ 9-11-9.2, Wright executed an authorization to release her medical records and filed it contemporaneously with her complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the authorization executed by Wright did not comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2 in several respects, most notably in that it did not allow communications between defendants’ attorneys and plaintiffs treating physicians outside the presence of and without first notifying plaintiffs attorney. The trial court denied defendants’ motions, finding that OCGA § 9-11-9.2 was preempted by the [555]*555Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191; 42 USC § 1320d et seq. (“HIPAA”) and that OCGA § 9-11-9.2 “conflicts with the formal discovery methods recognized under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. . . .” We granted defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal to determine issues relating to the enforcement of OCGA § 9-11-9.2.

Decided July 14, 2006 Chambless, Higdon, Richardson, Katz & Griggs, David N. Nelson, Norman C. Pearson III, Martin Snow, John C. Daniel III, Richard A. Epps, Jr., for appellants. Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, William H. Pinson, Jr., for appellee. Love, Willingham, Peters, Gilleland & Monyak, Allen S. Willing-ham, Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah, Matthew G. Nasrallah, amici curiae.

1. The identical issue raised in this appeal — whether HIPAA preempts OCGA§ 9-11-9.2 — was recently decided as a matter of first impression by this Court in Northlake Med. Center v. Queen, 280 Ga. App. 510 (634 SE2d 486) (2006). We agree with the reasoning set forth in Division 2 of that opinion and find it to be controlling here. It follows that the trial court did not err by denying defendants’ motion to dismiss Wright’s complaint for failure to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2.

2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we need not address the parties’ remaining arguments.

Judgment affirmed.

Ruffin, C. J., Johnson, P. J., Barnes and Phipps, JJ., concur. Andrews, P. J., and Mikell, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 S.E.2d 518, 280 Ga. App. 554, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2393, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-wright-gactapp-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack