Fain v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fain v. Moore

288 S.E.2d 317, 161 Ga. App. 368, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1881

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1982

Docket63369

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 288 S.E.2d 317 (Fain v. Moore) 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

Fain v. Moore, 288 S.E.2d 317, 161 Ga. App. 368, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1881 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

In the previous appearance of this medical malpractice case we reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee doctor on the ground that the opinion of his medical expert witness encompassed only “the degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the profession locally while the recognized standard in Georgia is that degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the profession generally.” Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 (270 SE2d 375) (1980). The deposition testimony of this witness taken subsequently clearly establishes that the appellee’s actions constituted the exercise of a reasonable degree of skill and care in accordance with local and general medical practices. However, when the appellee refiled his motion for summary judgment based upon the later deposition, the appellant produced nothing in response. This evidence was sufficient to establish grounds for summary judgment in the physician’s favor. Parker v. Knight, 245 Ga. 782 (267 SE2d 222) (1980); Savannah Valley Production Credit Assn. v. Cheek, 161 Ga. App. 365 (1982); Wagner v. Timms, 158 Ga. App. 538 (1) (281 SE2d 295) (1981); Cole v. Jordan, 158 Ga. App. 200 (3) (279 SE2d 497) (1981). Appellant’s arguments on appeal contain no citation of authority or competent evidence to create a question of fact as to the controlling issue. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur. Douglas R. X. Padgett, Bobby L. Cobb, for appellant. Robert G. Tanner, for appellee.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

In the previous appearance of this medical malpractice case we reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee doctor on the ground that the opinion of his medical expert witness encompassed only “the degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the profession locally while the recognized standard in Georgia is that degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the profession generally.” Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 (270 SE2d 375) (1980). The deposition testimony of this witness taken subsequently clearly establishes that the appellee’s actions constituted the exercise of a reasonable degree of skill and care in accordance with local and general medical practices. However, when the appellee refiled his motion for summary judgment based upon the later deposition, the appellant produced nothing in response. This evidence was sufficient to establish grounds for summary judgment in the physician’s favor. Parker v. Knight, 245 Ga. 782 (267 SE2d 222) (1980); Savannah Valley Production Credit Assn. v. Cheek, 161 Ga. App. 365 (1982); Wagner v. Timms, 158 Ga. App. 538 (1) (281 SE2d 295) (1981); Cole v. Jordan, 158 Ga. App. 200 (3) (279 SE2d 497) (1981). Appellant’s arguments on appeal contain no citation of authority or competent evidence to create a question of fact as to the controlling issue. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur. Douglas R. X. Padgett, Bobby L. Cobb, for appellant. Robert G. Tanner, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.E.2d 317, 161 Ga. App. 368, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fain-v-moore-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack