Doctors Hospital Surgery Center, L.P. v. Webb, 307 Ga. App. 44

In Jan-Feb 2009, Charlie Webb underwent a colonoscopy at Doctors Hospital Surgery Center; the Hospital later found the endoscope sterilization had not complied with specifications from Sept 10, 2007, to Feb 9, 2009.
The Hospital sent letters to about 1,300 potentially affected patients informing them of improper sterilization and offering free testing at an independent lab; Charlie Webb tested twice with negative results.
In Apr 2009, the Webbs sued the Hospital, later moving to certify a class for patients who received endoscopic procedures in the affected period.
The complaint asserted breach of contract, rescission, and negligence, seeking damages including procedure costs, disease remedies, ongoing monitoring, loss of consortium, emotional distress, punitive damages, costs, and fees.
After limited discovery, the trial court certified the class for liability and punitive damages under OCGA § 9-11-23(b)(2)/(3), reserving individual damages for later.
The Hospital appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by certifying the class due to failure to satisfy the prerequisites of OCGA § 9-11-23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 23(b)(2) certification was proper	Webbs contend medical monitoring is common relief applicable to the class.	Hospital argues predominate relief is monetary, so 23(b)(2) fails.	Abuse; 23(b)(2) not proper because monetary damages predominate.
Whether 23(b)(3) certification was proper	Webbs assert common issues exist for breach and negligence claims.	Hospital argues individualized causation and damages destroy predominance.	Abuse; predominance fails due to highly individualized causation for negligence damages.
Overall validity of class certification	Class treatment is appropriate to adjudicate common issues efficiently.	Certification should be denied for lack of four prerequisites and predominance.	Reversed; trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class.

Jones v. Douglas County, 262 Ga. 317, 418 S.E.2d 19 (1992) (class certification standards and abuse of discretion considerations)
Diallo v. American Intercontinental Univ., 301 Ga. App. 299, 687 S.E.2d 278 (2009) (requirements of 9-11-23(a) and (b) guidance for class action)
Rollins, Inc. v. Warren, 288 Ga. App. 184, 653 S.E.2d 794 (2007) (monetary damages central to class claims; centrality of damages)
McGarry v. Cingular Wireless, 267 Ga. App. 23, 599 S.E.2d 34 (2004) (analysis of class certification factors and predominance)
Intl. Bus. Machines Corp. v. Kemp, 244 Ga. App. 638, 536 S.E.2d 303 (2000) (precedent on class action predominance and common issues)
Life Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Meeks, 274 Ga. App. 212, 617 S.E.2d 179 (2005) (case-management and damages considerations in class actions)
Tanner v. Brasher, 254 Ga. 41, 326 S.E.2d 218 (1985) (individualized issues undermine class action viability)
Albany Urology Clinic v. Cleveland, 272 Ga. 296, 528 S.E.2d 777 (2000) (each patient’s liability proof may require case-by-case inquiry)
James v. Flash Foods, 267 Ga. App. 210, 598 S.E.2d 919 (2004) (proximate cause and liability require individualized fact-finding)
Castleberry's Food Co. v. Smith, 205 Ga. App. 859, 424 S.E.2d 33 (1992) (proximate cause as essential element; class action suitability depends on causation)
Lee v. Thomason, 277 Ga. App. 573, 627 S.E.2d 168 (2006) (emphasizes individualized considerations in damages claims)