Bynum v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bynum v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority

600 S.E.2d 623, 267 Ga. App. 899, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1636, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 665

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 2004

DocketA04A0633

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 600 S.E.2d 623 (Bynum v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority) 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

Bynum v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, 600 S.E.2d 623, 267 Ga. App. 899, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1636, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 665 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MlKELL, Judge.

Waddell Bynum appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint due to the expiration of the statute of limitation. We affirm.

Bynum, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Grady Memorial Hospital on December 31, 2002, based on an incident that allegedly occurred during his hospitalization seven years earlier. Bynum contended that on December 13, 1995, a male nurse struck him in the side and pushed him down on the bed, causing Bynum to bump his head. He demanded $600,000 in damages. In an amended complaint, Bynum alleged that the nurse’s actions rendered him unconscious for several hours. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss *900 the action, arguing that it was barred by OCGA § 9-3-33, which requires that actions for injuries to the person be brought within two years after the right of action accrues. The trial court granted the motion.

Decided May 13, 2004 Reconsideration denied June 17, 2004 Waddell Bynum, pro se. Deirdre Wolff, for appellee.

On appeal, Bynum apparently complains that the trial court erred, but his appellate brief contains no reasoned argument or citation to authority, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2). Bynum’s sole argument challenging the trial court’s decision as to the statute of limitation is as follows: “THE APPEAL IS BEING RAISED ON THE BELIEF THAT THE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AND THE FACT OF UNCERTAINTY STABILITY ARE IN FACT ONCE ONE THESE SITUATIONS HAPPENS WHICH SOMETIMES TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.” Regardless of this statement, Bynum’s appeal is meritless because his complaint fails to allege any facts that would permit tolling of the statute of limitation. 1 Even if the incident occurred as he described in 1995, Bynum admits that he suffered “discomfort” and was aware that he sustained injuries at that time. Accordingly, Bynum’s cause of action accrued in 1995, and his suit is time-barred.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.

1

See generally King v. Seitzingers, Inc., 160 Ga. App. 318 (287 SE2d 252) (1981).

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

MlKELL, Judge.

Waddell Bynum appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint due to the expiration of the statute of limitation. We affirm.

Bynum, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Grady Memorial Hospital on December 31, 2002, based on an incident that allegedly occurred during his hospitalization seven years earlier. Bynum contended that on December 13, 1995, a male nurse struck him in the side and pushed him down on the bed, causing Bynum to bump his head. He demanded $600,000 in damages. In an amended complaint, Bynum alleged that the nurse’s actions rendered him unconscious for several hours. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss *900 the action, arguing that it was barred by OCGA § 9-3-33, which requires that actions for injuries to the person be brought within two years after the right of action accrues. The trial court granted the motion.

Decided May 13, 2004 Reconsideration denied June 17, 2004 Waddell Bynum, pro se. Deirdre Wolff, for appellee.

On appeal, Bynum apparently complains that the trial court erred, but his appellate brief contains no reasoned argument or citation to authority, in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2). Bynum’s sole argument challenging the trial court’s decision as to the statute of limitation is as follows: “THE APPEAL IS BEING RAISED ON THE BELIEF THAT THE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AND THE FACT OF UNCERTAINTY STABILITY ARE IN FACT ONCE ONE THESE SITUATIONS HAPPENS WHICH SOMETIMES TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.” Regardless of this statement, Bynum’s appeal is meritless because his complaint fails to allege any facts that would permit tolling of the statute of limitation. 1 Even if the incident occurred as he described in 1995, Bynum admits that he suffered “discomfort” and was aware that he sustained injuries at that time. Accordingly, Bynum’s cause of action accrued in 1995, and his suit is time-barred.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.

1

See generally King v. Seitzingers, Inc., 160 Ga. App. 318 (287 SE2d 252) (1981).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 S.E.2d 623, 267 Ga. App. 899, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1636, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bynum-v-fulton-dekalb-hospital-authority-gactapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack