Griffin v. Emory Clinic, Inc.

Facts

In this case, Plaintiff Joseph Griffin had been wheelchair-bound and non-weight-bearing for over a decade. He frequently visited the Emory Clinic for routine medical examinations with his long-term care physician Dr. Propp.  During a visit in September 2020, Anna Smith, Dr. Propp’s medical assistant, instructed the Plaintiff to get out of his wheelchair and climb onto a weighing machine without assistance. The Plaintiff fell when he got out of his chair unassisted and suffered significant injuries including a femur fracture.

In August of 2022, the Plaintiff filed the subject negligence actions against Emory Clinic, Dr. Propp, and Anna Smith. The Plaintiff specifically alleged the Defendants “knew or ought to have known that [the Plaintiff,] based on his medical condition and age[,] should have been weighed with a machine that fits his condition and[/]or aided while climbing and standing on a weighing machine for his weight to be taken off.”

The Plaintiff did not file an O.C.G.A. 9-11-9.1(a) expert affidavit with his complaint. Contemporaneously with their answer, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to file an affidavit. At oral argument, the Plaintiff conceded that his claim was not a traditional trip and fall case, but rather arose from the Defendants’ knowledge of his limited condition and inability to rise out of the wheelchair unassisted. The trial court determined that the subject action was sounded in professional negligence and thereby required an expert affidavit. Therefore it granted the Defendants’ motion.  

Issue & Holding

The Plaintiff appealed arguing that dismissal was improper because Smith, whose alleged negligent conduct caused his injuries, was a non-licensed medical assistant for whom an affidavit is required under O.C.G.A. 9-11-9.1.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed. Specifically, it held that dismissal was improper for claims against Smith and any derivative or ordinary negligence claims attributable to Dr. Propp and Emory resulting from Smith’s alleged negligent conduct. 

However, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent that the Plaintiff alleged any professional negligence claims against Dr. Propp and Emory. 

Reasoning

The court noted “importantly ‘[a] complaint is not required to set forth a cause of action, but need only set forth a claim for relief. If, within the framework of the complaint, evidence may be introduced which will sustain a grant of relief to the plaintiff, the complaint is sufficient.’” Thus, “only a short and plain statement of the claim [is required to] give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and a general indication of the type of litigation involved; the discovery process bears the burden of filling in details.”

Here, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the non-moving party, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s complaint could be read to state a claim for ordinary negligence against Smith. Further, even though the Plaintiff did not specifically allege that Dr. Propp or Emory were vicariously liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, the Plaintiff’s complaint did allege that Smith was acting under “negligent instruction.” Therefore, the court held there were sufficient allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint to support a claim for vicarious liability. 

Next, the court reiterated its precedent that held there are situations where actions by professionals may constitute “simple” negligence and not professional malpractice. As it stated: 

Where the professional’s alleged negligence requires the exercise of professional skill and judgment to comply with a standard of conduct within the professional’s area of expertise, the action states professional negligence. But where the allegations of negligence do not involve professional skill and judgment, the action states ordinary negligence. Whether a complaint alleges ordinary or professional negligence is a question of law for the court.

Thus, the court held that any of the Plaintiff’s claims that alleged a breach of the professional standard of care were properly dismissed by the trial court. 

Conclusion

From a plaintiff’s standpoint, Griffin is a positive decision insofar as it shows the appellate courts’ reluctance to prevent recovery in a seemingly legitimate case due to technicalities under the Civil Practice Act.

It is also illustrative of another programmatic point—when in doubt, it is likely best to err on the side of caution and include an expert affidavit in claims against professionals to properly protect your client’s interests in the case. Even where your claim may appear to be rooted in ordinary negligence, if you can identify even one professionally negligent act, an affidavit should be seriously considered. After all, discovery may reveal professional negligence that you were unaware of or failed to consider when you filed the case. 

Notably,  O.C.G.A. 9-11-9.1 does not require that the expert affidavit identify every negligent act in a given transaction or series of transactions or occurrences, but rather, at least one negligent act. If you have an affidavit from an expert who is qualified to opine about a particular case, as potential new claims may reveal themselves in discovery, you will be set if you need to amend to add a claim. Conversely, if you do not file an affidavit and a professional negligence claim reveals itself during discovery, you will have to scramble, likely after the statute of limitations, to obtain an affidavit and worry whether the claim will relate back to the original filing. 

It is unclear in Griffin why the Plaintiff’s counsel chose not to include an expert affidavit. The cost of obtaining an affidavit could have been a factor for its omission. Indeed, one important aspect of effectively managing your client’s case is retaining expert help when it may add value to the case and saving costs where case value does not justify incurring substantial additional expenses. Choosing the right attorney who can effectively weigh these costs and benefits can certainly add value to a personal injury case. 

Citation: Griffin v. Emory Clinic, 371 Ga. App. 633, 901 S.E.2d 761, A24A0073 (Ga. Ct. App. May 21, 2024)