Blackmon v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blackmon v. Thompson

394 S.E.2d 795, 195 Ga. App. 589, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, 1990 WL 118945

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1990

DocketA90A0164

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 394 S.E.2d 795 (Blackmon v. Thompson) 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

Blackmon v. Thompson, 394 S.E.2d 795, 195 Ga. App. 589, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, 1990 WL 118945 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Chief Judge.

On June 15, 1988, appellant-plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice action against appellee-defendants, alleging that the cause of action arose on June 16, 1986. However, appellants failed to file with their complaint the affidavit of an expert as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, which became effective July 1, 1987. The lack of an expert’s affidavit was raised in appellees’ answer and they thereafter moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Appellants never attempted to amend their complaint by filing such an affidavit and the trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss. Appellants appeal from this order.

Appellants urge that OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affects substantive rights and thus cannot be applied retrospectively to their cause of action which arose prior to its effective date. This contention is controlled adversely to appellants by Precision Planning v. Wall, 193 Ga. App. 331, 332 (387 SE2d 610) (1989): “In the instant case, the OCGA § 9-11-9.1 requirement of submitting an expert’s affidavit along with the complaint did not affect the substantive right of action for professional malpractice; it alters neither the standard of care to be applied nor the measure of recovery. The statute merely prescribes a procedure for enforcing that right, evidently with the purpose of preventing frivolous or unsustainable actions. Accordingly, the trial court [did nor err] in applying the statute [retroactively], and in [granting appellees’ motion] to dismiss. [Cits.]”

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Carley, Chief Judge.

On June 15, 1988, appellant-plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice action against appellee-defendants, alleging that the cause of action arose on June 16, 1986. However, appellants failed to file with their complaint the affidavit of an expert as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, which became effective July 1, 1987. The lack of an expert’s affidavit was raised in appellees’ answer and they thereafter moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Appellants never attempted to amend their complaint by filing such an affidavit and the trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss. Appellants appeal from this order.

Appellants urge that OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affects substantive rights and thus cannot be applied retrospectively to their cause of action which arose prior to its effective date. This contention is controlled adversely to appellants by Precision Planning v. Wall, 193 Ga. App. 331, 332 (387 SE2d 610) (1989): “In the instant case, the OCGA § 9-11-9.1 requirement of submitting an expert’s affidavit along with the complaint did not affect the substantive right of action for professional malpractice; it alters neither the standard of care to be applied nor the measure of recovery. The statute merely prescribes a procedure for enforcing that right, evidently with the purpose of preventing frivolous or unsustainable actions. Accordingly, the trial court [did nor err] in applying the statute [retroactively], and in [granting appellees’ motion] to dismiss. [Cits.]”

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 S.E.2d 795, 195 Ga. App. 589, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, 1990 WL 118945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackmon-v-thompson-gactapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack