Knight v. Parker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Knight v. Parker

263 S.E.2d 248, 152 Ga. App. 467, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2963

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 21, 1979

Docket58346

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 S.E.2d 248 (Knight v. Parker) 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

Knight v. Parker, 263 S.E.2d 248, 152 Ga. App. 467, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2963 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit for malpractice alleging damages based on defendant-physician’s negligent treatment of a cyst upon her finger. Plaintiff claimed that her finger became infected, crooked and drawn as a result of defendant’s treatment and that, consequently, the use of her finger and hand has been severely restricted.

Defendant submitted an affidavit along with his motion for summary judgment, wherein he averred that in his expert opinion his surgical and postoperative treatment of the plaintiff met acceptable medical standards. Upon plaintiffs failure to respond to defendant’s motion with expert opinion indicating the contrary, defendant’s motion was granted. We reverse.

Ordinarily, "in those cases where the plaintiff must *468 produce an expert’s opinion in order to prevail at trial [see Dickerson v. Hulsey, 138 Ga. App. 108 (225 SE2d 464), requiring expert opinion in medical malpractice suits], when the defendant produces an expert’s opinion in his favor on motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff fails to produce a contrary expert opinion in opposition to that motion, then there is no genuine issue to be tried by the jury and it is not error to grant summary judgment to the defendant. [Cits.]” Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406, 408 (249 SE2d 45).

Submitted September 4, 1979 — Decided November 21, 1979 — Ben B. Mills, Jr., for appellant. Terry A. Dillard, S. F. Memory, Jr., for appellee.

However, in Simons v. Conn, 151 Ga. App. 525 (1979), this court held that the expert opinion of the party defendant-physician alone was insufficient to pierce the complaining party’s pleadings. Therefore, in accordance with Simons, we hold that in the absence of additional expert opinion supporting defendant-physician’s contentions of due care, it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to introduce expert opinion to support her allegations of defendant’s negligence. This being so, the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit for malpractice alleging damages based on defendant-physician’s negligent treatment of a cyst upon her finger. Plaintiff claimed that her finger became infected, crooked and drawn as a result of defendant’s treatment and that, consequently, the use of her finger and hand has been severely restricted.

Defendant submitted an affidavit along with his motion for summary judgment, wherein he averred that in his expert opinion his surgical and postoperative treatment of the plaintiff met acceptable medical standards. Upon plaintiffs failure to respond to defendant’s motion with expert opinion indicating the contrary, defendant’s motion was granted. We reverse.

Ordinarily, "in those cases where the plaintiff must *468 produce an expert’s opinion in order to prevail at trial [see Dickerson v. Hulsey, 138 Ga. App. 108 (225 SE2d 464), requiring expert opinion in medical malpractice suits], when the defendant produces an expert’s opinion in his favor on motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff fails to produce a contrary expert opinion in opposition to that motion, then there is no genuine issue to be tried by the jury and it is not error to grant summary judgment to the defendant. [Cits.]” Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406, 408 (249 SE2d 45).

Submitted September 4, 1979 — Decided November 21, 1979 — Ben B. Mills, Jr., for appellant. Terry A. Dillard, S. F. Memory, Jr., for appellee.

However, in Simons v. Conn, 151 Ga. App. 525 (1979), this court held that the expert opinion of the party defendant-physician alone was insufficient to pierce the complaining party’s pleadings. Therefore, in accordance with Simons, we hold that in the absence of additional expert opinion supporting defendant-physician’s contentions of due care, it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to introduce expert opinion to support her allegations of defendant’s negligence. This being so, the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 S.E.2d 248, 152 Ga. App. 467, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-parker-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack