Shessel v. Gay

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shessel v. Gay

228 S.E.2d 361, 139 Ga. App. 429, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1833

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1976

Docket52450

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 361 (Shessel v. Gay) 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

Shessel v. Gay, 228 S.E.2d 361, 139 Ga. App. 429, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1833 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This'medical malpractice action arose out of a sterilization procedure. The complaint was in two counts, one in tort and one in contract. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 was granted because of the bar of the two year statute of limitation applicable to a suit for personal injury; but the trial court denied the motion as to the contract count. The denial was certified for immediate review and this court granted defendants’ application for an appeal. Held:

We reverse. It is undisputed that the sterilization procedure was performed in full compliance with the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act. Ga. L. 1970 pp. 683-688 (Code Ann. § 84-932 et seq.). Section 6 of the Act provides: "When an operation shall have been performed in compliance with the provisions of this law, no physician duly licensed without restriction to practice medicine and surgery in this State or other person legally participating in the execution of the provisions of this Act shall be liable civilly or to criminal prosecution on account of such operation or participation therein, except in the case of negligence in the performance of said procedures...” This provision of law bars the claim based on contract. We reverse and direct the trial court to grant defendants’ motion as to Count 2 of the complaint.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This'medical malpractice action arose out of a sterilization procedure. The complaint was in two counts, one in tort and one in contract. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 was granted because of the bar of the two year statute of limitation applicable to a suit for personal injury; but the trial court denied the motion as to the contract count. The denial was certified for immediate review and this court granted defendants’ application for an appeal. Held:

We reverse. It is undisputed that the sterilization procedure was performed in full compliance with the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act. Ga. L. 1970 pp. 683-688 (Code Ann. § 84-932 et seq.). Section 6 of the Act provides: "When an operation shall have been performed in compliance with the provisions of this law, no physician duly licensed without restriction to practice medicine and surgery in this State or other person legally participating in the execution of the provisions of this Act shall be liable civilly or to criminal prosecution on account of such operation or participation therein, except in the case of negligence in the performance of said procedures...” This provision of law bars the claim based on contract. We reverse and direct the trial court to grant defendants’ motion as to Count 2 of the complaint.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.E.2d 361, 139 Ga. App. 429, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shessel-v-gay-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack