Nelson v. Parrott

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nelson v. Parrott

333 S.E.2d 101, 175 Ga. App. 307, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2089

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1985

Docket70328

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 333 S.E.2d 101 (Nelson v. Parrott) 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

Nelson v. Parrott, 333 S.E.2d 101, 175 Ga. App. 307, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2089 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

This is an action for medical malpractice for unwanted pregnancy, the allegation being that appellee Parrott negligently performed a sterilization procedure (tubal ligation) upon the plaintiff so that she subsequently endured an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy with resultant hospitalization and surgery, pain and suffering. From summary judgment to the defendant doctor, Nelson appeals. Held:

1. Summary judgment to the doctor was correct. An action for unwanted pregnancy because of failed sterilization has been recognized in Georgia (Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Graves, 252 Ga. 441, 442-443 (314 SE2d 653)), but the plaintiff is still bound to the same proof as in other medical malpractice cases. The defendant doctor produced an expert affidavit and deposition evidence affirming that he exercised that degree of skill and learning ordinarily exercised and possessed by members of his profession generally and used reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of his best judgment. The plaintiff did not produce an affidavit or counter affidavit proving negligence as required to prevail against an affidavit of the defendant on summary judgment. Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406 (249 SE2d 45); see Berman v. Rubin, 138 Ga. App. 849, 853 (227 SE2d 802). This is not one of those cases where professional negligence is so apparent that expert testimony is unnecessary to establish a prima facie case of malpractice, as described in Killingsworth v. Poon, 167 Ga. App. 653 (307 SE2d 123). Evidence in the case indicates there is a known or expected failure rate of one to four cases per one thousand; moreover, the plaintiff signed a request for voluntary sterilization which clearly provides: “The operation has been explained to me, and I understand that this operation is intended to result in sterility, although this result has not been guaranteed.” (Emphasis supplied.) Under this evi *308 dence, to escape summary judgment, the plaintiff must have produced expert evidence that Parrott was negligent in performing the surgery, and she did not do so.

Decided June 6, 1985 Rehearing denied July 8, 1985 O. Wayne Ellerbee, for appellant. Wade H. Coleman, for appellee.

2. We are unable to find a cause of action for breach of warranty in this case, if for no other reason than that the plaintiff’s execution of the consent form quoted above proves the operation was not guaranteed as to sterility, and the plaintiff was well aware of that fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Corley and Sognier, JJ., concur.

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

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

This is an action for medical malpractice for unwanted pregnancy, the allegation being that appellee Parrott negligently performed a sterilization procedure (tubal ligation) upon the plaintiff so that she subsequently endured an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy with resultant hospitalization and surgery, pain and suffering. From summary judgment to the defendant doctor, Nelson appeals. Held:

1. Summary judgment to the doctor was correct. An action for unwanted pregnancy because of failed sterilization has been recognized in Georgia (Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Graves, 252 Ga. 441, 442-443 (314 SE2d 653)), but the plaintiff is still bound to the same proof as in other medical malpractice cases. The defendant doctor produced an expert affidavit and deposition evidence affirming that he exercised that degree of skill and learning ordinarily exercised and possessed by members of his profession generally and used reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of his best judgment. The plaintiff did not produce an affidavit or counter affidavit proving negligence as required to prevail against an affidavit of the defendant on summary judgment. Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406 (249 SE2d 45); see Berman v. Rubin, 138 Ga. App. 849, 853 (227 SE2d 802). This is not one of those cases where professional negligence is so apparent that expert testimony is unnecessary to establish a prima facie case of malpractice, as described in Killingsworth v. Poon, 167 Ga. App. 653 (307 SE2d 123). Evidence in the case indicates there is a known or expected failure rate of one to four cases per one thousand; moreover, the plaintiff signed a request for voluntary sterilization which clearly provides: “The operation has been explained to me, and I understand that this operation is intended to result in sterility, although this result has not been guaranteed.” (Emphasis supplied.) Under this evi *308 dence, to escape summary judgment, the plaintiff must have produced expert evidence that Parrott was negligent in performing the surgery, and she did not do so.

Decided June 6, 1985 Rehearing denied July 8, 1985 O. Wayne Ellerbee, for appellant. Wade H. Coleman, for appellee.

2. We are unable to find a cause of action for breach of warranty in this case, if for no other reason than that the plaintiff’s execution of the consent form quoted above proves the operation was not guaranteed as to sterility, and the plaintiff was well aware of that fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Corley and Sognier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 S.E.2d 101, 175 Ga. App. 307, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-parrott-gactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack