FOURTH DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
RAY and MCMILLIAN, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
October 28, 2015
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A15A1572. PIEDMONT HOSPITAL, INC. v. D. M.
A15A1573. COLQUITT v. D. M.
MCMILLIAN, Judge.
Piedmont Hospital (“Piedmont”) and Dr. James DeWayne Colquitt assert that
the statute of repose for medical malpractice actions bars D. M.’s claims for
negligence and fraud in connection with the failure to inform him of the results of a
blood test performed while he was a patient at Piedmont. Thus, they contend that the
trial court erred in denying their motions for summary judgment.
On May 11, 2005, Colquitt performed an appendectomy on D. M. at Piedmont
after D. M. presented at the hospital’s emergency room complaining of abdominal
pain.1 During the surgery, a Piedmont staff member was inadvertently exposed to D.
1
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Giles v. Swimmer, 290
M.’s blood or other bodily fluids, and Piedmont policy dictated that D. M.’s blood be
tested for blood-borne pathogens, including HIV, to determine the risk of the
employee’s exposure. Piedmont’s laboratory first used a sample of D. M.’s blood
already in the lab’s possession to perform a rapid HIV test. On the morning of May
12, 2005, the rapid HIV test showed a presumptively positive result for HIV,
necessitating a second confirmatory test, but Piedmont’s lab did not have a sufficient
blood sample for further testing. D. M. was asked to supply a further sample, and at
first he refused. However, after Colquitt explained that a blood test was needed to
protect the Piedmont employee, D. M. agreed to give another sample, although he
expressed reluctance about hearing the results of the test at that time. D. M. was
discharged from the hospital the same day, with Colquitt’s instruction to make a
follow-up appointment.
Piedmont used the new blood sample drawn from D. M. to perform a “more
sensitive” in-house HIV test and an outside lab test, both of which showed that D. M.
was positive for HIV. The second in-house HIV test result was verified on May 13,
Ga. 650, 651-652 (1) (725 SE2d 220) (2012).
2
2005, and the final confirmatory test result was received on May 14, 2005.2 Colquitt
did not call D. M. to inform him of these results, planning instead to tell him in
person at the follow-up appointment, although he did report the results to D. M.’s
primary care physician. However, D. M. never scheduled a follow-up appointment
with Colquitt or called him or anyone else to determine the results of his HIV tests.
D. M. was not tested for HIV for another six years, until May 2011. After learning
that the results of that test were “indicative of an AIDS diagnosis,” D. M. obtained
his Piedmont medical records and learned for the first time of the positive results of
the 2005 HIV tests.
D. M. filed the lawsuit in this case on May 10, 2013, almost eight years after
the HIV tests revealed a positive result, asserting claims for professional negligence,
negligence per se under OCGA § 31-22-9.2 (d), ordinary negligence, and fraud. D.
M. later amended his complaint to assert additional claims for negligence per se,
alleging that Colquitt and Piedmont breached duties imposed under OCGA §§ 24-12-
21 and 31-12-2 (b) to inform the Georgia Department of Public Health and him that
he had tested positive for HIV. Piedmont and Colquitt subsequently moved for
2
For ease of reference, we will refer to all three HIV blood tests collectively
as the “HIV tests.”
3
summary judgment on the ground that OCGA § 9-3-71 (b), the statute of repose
applicable to medical malpractice claims, barred D. M.’s claims against them.
Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order on December 16, 2014 (the
“December 16 order”), in which it found that the statute of repose would be
applicable only to the one count of D. M.’s complaint expressly asserting a claim for
“professional negligence.” However, the trial court also found that D. M. had
effectively abandoned that claim and struck it from the complaint.3 The trial court
further noted that D. M. had expressly withdrawn his claims for negligence per se
against Piedmont. After making these findings, the trial court denied summary
judgment as to the remaining claims because they “do not complain of ‘the propriety
of a professional decision.’” On December 19, 2014, D. M. filed a “Second Amended
Complaint” that omitted any claims for negligence per se against either defendant.4
Accordingly, only D. M.’s claims for ordinary negligence and fraud remain.
3
D. M. has not appealed this ruling and thus, D. M. no longer has an express
claim for professional negligence.
4
By letter dated December 18, 2014, D. M.’s counsel informed the court that
this amendment “crossed in the mail” with the December 16 Order and that D. M.
planned to amend his complaint “to conform to the Order after [Colquitt’s] requested
certification of immediate review is denied.” No further amendment appears in the
record.
4
Subsequently, at the request of Piedmont and Colquitt, the trial court set aside
its December 16 order and reentered it “verbatim” on January 14, 2015. The trial
court also issued a certificate for immediate review of that order, and this Court
granted the resulting applications for interlocutory appeal filed by Colquitt and
Piedmont.
1. We first address D. M.’s argument that we should decline to exercise
jurisdiction in this case. He asserts that the trial court used the procedure of setting
aside and reentering the December 16 order to improperly grant Piedmont and
Colquitt an extension of time for filing their interlocutory applications in violation
of Court of Appeals Rule 30 (g), which provides that “[n]o extension of time shall be
granted for filing of interlocutory applications or responses to interlocutory
applications.” However, the Supreme Court of Georgia has approved a trial court’s
use of a similar procedure, noting that “[s]ummary judgment orders [that] do not
dispose of the entire case are considered interlocutory and . . . are subject to revision
at any time before final judgment.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) See
Canoeside Properties, Inc. v. Livsey, 277 Ga. 425, 427 (1) (589 SE2d 116) (2003).
And Court of Appeals Rule 30 (g) is not intended to limit the authority of a trial court
to revise its interlocutory orders. In any event, the rules of the appellate courts “are
5
directory only, and not jurisdictional.” Park v. Minton, 229 Ga. 765, 768 (1) (194
SE2d 465) (1972). Accordingly, we find no error by the trial court and conclude that
the applications were timely filed and properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Piedmont and Colquitt argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying
their motions for summary judgment because all of D. M.’s claims constitute an
“action for medical malpractice” under OCGA § 9-3-705 and thus are barred by the
statute of repose set forth in OCGA § 9-3-71 (b).
5
That statute provides:
As used in this article, the term “action for medical malpractice” means
any claim for damages resulting from the death of or injury to any
person arising out of:
(1) Health, medical, dental, or surgical service, diagnosis, prescription,
treatment, or care rendered by a person authorized by law to perform
such service or by any person acting under the supervision and control
of the lawfully authorized person; or
(2) Care or service rendered by any public or private hospital, nursing
home, clinic, hospital authority, facility, or institution, or by any officer,
agent, or employee thereof acting within the scope of his employment.
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 9-3-70.
6
Under the statute of repose, an action for medical malpractice must be brought
within five years from the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission
occurred. OCGA § 9-3-71 (b). And as our Supreme Court has explained,
A statute of repose stands as an unyielding barrier to a plaintiff’s right
of action. The statute of repose is absolute; the bar of the statute of
limitation is contingent. The statute of repose destroys the previously
existing rights so that, on the expiration of the statutory period, the
cause of action no longer exists.
(Citations omitted.) Simmons v. Sonyika, 279 Ga. 378, 379 (614 SE2d 27) (2005).
“The test for determining when OCGA § 9-3-71 (b)’s period of repose begins
is based on the determination of when the negligent act causing the injury occurred.”
Schramm v. Lyon, 285 Ga. 72, 73 (1) (673 SE2d 241) (2009). In this case, D. M.
alleges that Piedmont and Colquitt were negligent in failing to inform him of the
positive HIV results from the HIV tests in May 2005, and it is undisputed that he did
not file his complaint until May 2013, almost three years outside the statutory period
of repose.
Nevertheless, by its terms, OCGA § 9-3-71 applies only to claims for medical
malpractice, not to claims for ordinary negligence, and D. M.’s complaint contains
a claim designated as “ordinary negligence.” “While complaints against professionals
7
may state a claim based on ordinary as well as professional negligence, the
complaint’s characterization of the claims as professional or ordinary negligence does
not control.” Carr v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., 293 Ga. App. 80, 82 (2)
(666 SE2d 401) (2008). Rather, “[w]e must look to the substance of the action against
a medical professional in determining whether the action is one for professional or
simple negligence.” (Citation omitted.) Atlanta Women’s Health Group v. Clemons,
287 Ga. App. 426, 427 (651 SE2d 762) (2007). This determination presents a
question of law for the court. Wellstar Health System, Inc. v. Painter, 288 Ga. App.
659, 662 (655 SE2d 251) (2007).
Under Georgia law, “[t]he confidential relationship between doctor and patient
creates a duty to inform the patient of his or her condition.” (Citations and
punctuation omitted.) In re Carter, 288 Ga. App. 276, 287 (4) (653 SE2d 860) (2007).
See also Oliver v. Sutton, 246 Ga. App. 436, 438 (540 SE2d 645) (2000). And this
Court has found that “a lawsuit premised upon a breach of this duty is a classic
medical malpractice action.” Carter, 288 Ga. App. at 287 (4) (a). See also Stafford-
Fox, 282 Ga. App. at 671 (2) (holding that failure to inform patient of vitamin
deficiency stated claim for medical malpractice); Peace v. Weisman, 186 Ga. App.
697, 699-700 (3) (368 SE2d 319) (1988) (noting that a treating physician’s failure to
8
inform a patient of his condition constituted medical malpractice, but finding no
physician-patient relationship existed in that case where doctor performed the
examination on behalf of the Department of Human Resources). As this Court
explained in Peace,
[t]here are three essential elements imposing liability [in a medical
malpractice case] upon which recovery is bottomed: (1) [t]he duty
inherent in the doctor-patient relationship; (2) the breach of that duty by
failing to exercise the requisite degree of skill and care; and (3) that this
failure be the proximate cause of the injury sustained. . . . [S]uch cases
[are] called “classic medical malpractice actions.”
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) 186 Ga. App. at 698 (1).
This authority, and in particular the Carter case, controls our analysis here. In
Carter, a newborn was screened for sickle cell anemia at birth in accordance with
OCGA §§ 31-12-6 and 31-12-7. Under OCGA § 31-12-7 (b), where the screening test
shows a positive result, “it shall be the duty of the examining physician or the
[Department of Public Health] to inform the parents of such child that the child is so
afflicted.” Although the child’s test showed a positive result and attempts were made
to inform the parents, the notification was never successfully delivered. At the age of
12, the child, who had received no treatment for the disease in the interim, suffered
9
a debilitating stroke, and the parents sued the child’s treating physicians, among
others, for failing to notify them of the child’s condition. Carter, 288 Ga. App. at
278-279. This Court found that any duty on the part of the physicians to provide such
notice “arose in the context of a medical malpractice claim,” and, in fact, presented
a classic medical malpractice claim.6 Id. at 288 (4) (a). The Court found, however,
that the parents’ claims were barred because they had failed to attach an expert
medical affidavit to their complaint. Id.
D. M. similarly asserts that the duty of Colquitt and Piedmont to inform him
of the positive results on the HIV tests arose under Georgia statutory law. See OCGA
§ 31-22-9.2 (d) and (g) (2).7 Pretermitting the scope of the duty to inform a patient of
6
The Court also held that the statutory reporting requirement created no strict
liability claim against the physicians. Carter, 288 Ga. App. at 283 (1).
7
OCGA § 31-22-9.2 (d) requires that a “health care provider ordering an HIV
test shall provide medically appropriate counseling to the person tested with regard
to the test results. Such medically appropriate counseling shall only be required when
the last confirmatory test has been completed.” OCGA § 31-22-9.2 (g) (2) applies
where a health care provider has been exposed to bodily fluids and the patient refuses
the HIV test. In such a case, an HIV test may be performed
when at least one other health care provider who is otherwise authorized
to order an HIV test concurs in writing to the testing, the patient is
informed of the results of the test and is provided counseling with regard
to those results, and the occurrence of that test is not made a part of the
10
a positive HIV test under these provisions, we find that, as in Carter, D. M.’s claims
based on the failure of Colquitt and Piedmont to notify him of the positive HIV test
results, even if designated as ordinary negligence or fraud claims, arise out of the
breach of a professional duty to inform D. M. of his medical condition and thus must
be considered classic medical malpractice claims. See Carr, 293 Ga. App. at 83 (2)
(fraud claim based on allegation that nurses did not render services with the
appropriate standard of care properly treated as a claim for medical malpractice);
Thompson v. Long, 225 Ga. App. 719, 721 (4) (484 SE2d 666) (1997) (physical
precedent only) (mere fact that plaintiff alleged that doctor’s conduct was intentional
does not mean that claims were not medical malpractice claims).8
We note that our Supreme Court has found a “tension” in the case law
regarding the proper analysis to be applied in determining whether a claim presents
patient’s medical records, where the test results are negative, without the
patient’s consent.
OCGA § 31-22-9.2 (g) (2). OCGA § 31-22-9.2 has been amended since 2005, but not
in any material way that would affect our analysis.
8
But see Labovitz v. Hopkinson, 271 Ga. 330, 334 (3) (519 SE2d 672) (1999)
(no expert affidavit necessary for actions alleging intentional or fraudulent acts by
attorney because “OCGA § 9-11-9.1, by its very language, is applicable only to those
professional malpractice actions alleging professional negligence”).
11
a question of medical malpractice or ordinary negligence. Deen v. Stevens, 287 Ga.
597, 611 (3) (698 SE2d 321) (2010). The Court noted that one line of cases hold “that
only when the claim goes to the propriety of a professional decision rather than to the
efficacy of conduct in the carrying out of a decision previously made does it sound
in professional malpractice rather than simple negligence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Id.
at 610 (3) (citing Upson County Hosp., Inc. v. Head, 246 Ga. App. 386, 389 (1) (540
SE2d 626) (2000) and Robinson v. Med. Center of Central Ga., 217 Ga. App. 8, 10
(456 SE2d 254) (1995)). But other cases hold that actions against even
nonprofessionals may be considered medical malpractice under the language of
OCGA § 9-3-70 where “such claims ‘aris(e) out of’ the provision of professional
services.” Id. (citing Baskette v. Atlanta Center for Reproductive Medicine, 285 Ga.
App. 876, 880-881 (648 SE2d 100) (2007); Stafford-Fox v. Jenkins, 282 Ga. App.
667, 672 (639 SE2d 610) (2006)).
We need not resolve this tension here, however, because under either analysis,
D. M.’s claims must be considered medical malpractice claims. The first line of cases
distinguishes between claims that “[call] into question the conduct of the professional
in his area of expertise,” which assert claims of medical malpractice, and claims that
address “[a]dministrative, clerical, or routine acts demanding no special expertise[,]”
12
which “fall in the realm of simple negligence.” Head, 246 Ga. App. at 389 (1).
Because the claims in this case constitute a “classic medical malpractice action,” they
necessarily implicate the breach of a professional duty. Thus, they cannot be
considered as claims arising out of administrative, clerical, or routine acts and
likewise cannot be considered as claims for ordinary negligence. And a claim
asserting a beach of a professional duty to inform a medical patient of his condition,
clearly “arises out of” the provision of medical services as broadly defined under the
plain terms of OCGA § 9-3-70.
Accordingly, we find that D. M.’s claims are subject to the five-year statute
of repose under OCGA § 9-3-71 (b).
3. D. M. argued below, however, that Piedmont and Colquitt should be
equitably estopped from asserting the statute of repose as a defense because the
failure to inform D. M. of the positive HIV tests constituted fraud and/or gross
negligence that deterred him from filing a claim. See generally Rosenberg v. Falling
Water, Inc., 289 Ga. 57, 60 (709 SE2d 227) (2011) (describing how a defendant may
be equitably estopped from asserting a defense based on the statute of repose). The
trial court did not address this issue because it found that D. M. had abandoned his
only claim for medical malpractice; however, it acknowledged that if this ruling were
13
reversed on appeal, “it will then be necessary to address the matter of equitable
estoppel.” Piedmont and Colquitt nevertheless urge us to address this issue on appeal
as part of our de novo review of the trial court’s order, but D. M. argues that we
should remand the matter for consideration by the trial court. We agree with D. M.
Piedmont and Colquitt contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion
for summary judgment. Thus, they are not urging us to engage in a “right-for-any-
reason analysis” to affirm the grant of summary judgment; rather, they are asking us
to pursue a “wrong-for-any-reason” analysis to reverse the denial of their motion.
However,
[w]hen this Court reviews a decision of a trial court on a motion for
summary judgment, it sits as a court for the correction of errors of law.
An error of law has as its basis a specific ruling made by the trial court.
And although in certain instances an appellate court can review a record
and determine that a summary judgment ruling was right for some
reason other than that given by the trial court, an appellate court should
not consider whether the trial court was “wrong for any reason.”
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. United Community Bank, 313 Ga.
App. 706, 707-708 (722 SE2d 440) (2012). See also Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App.
35, 44 (2) (b) (714 SE2d 723) (2011).
14
Here, the trial court expressly declined to rule on the issue of whether Colquitt
and Piedmont are equitably estopped from asserting a statute of repose defense based
on its erroneous determination that no medical malpractice claims remained. Because
the trial court did not reach the issue of equitable estoppel in denying the motions for
summary judgment, we find that the issue is outside the proper scope of our review
in this appeal. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for
consideration of D. M.’s claim of equitable estoppel. See Strength, 311 Ga. App. at
44 (2) (b). See also Community Renewal and Redemption, LLC v. Nix, 279 Ga. 840,
842 (2) (621 SE2d 722) (2005) (declining to apply a “right-for-any-reason” analysis
where denial of summary judgment was based on an erroneous legal theory and trial
court’s ruling left other issues unresolved); City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834,
838-839 (573 SE2d 369) (2002) (appellate courts retain discretion in determining
whether to apply the right-for-any-reason rule and consider alternative legal theories
not addressed by the trial court on summary judgment, or to vacate order and remand
for the trial court to consider alternative legal theories in the first instance).
Judgments vacated and cases remanded. Barnes, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.
15