Dorn v. Georgia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities
329 Ga. App. 384
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dorn, as administrator of his son’s estate, sued the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities for damages arising from alleged negligence proximately causing the decedent’s death.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with ante litem notice under GTCA OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq., specifically for not stating the loss amount.
- Dorn served ante litem notice by certified mail stating the amount as the monetary value of the decedent’s life, but without a dollar figure (loss not quantified).
- The Department answered and moved to dismiss, citing noncompliance with OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E).
- Georgia courts require strict, not substantial, compliance with ante litem notice; notice must include the amount of the loss claimed within claimant’s knowledge and belief.
- The court affirmed the dismissal, holding Dorn’s notice failed to specify the amount of loss claimed and pro se status does not excuse statutory compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ante litem notice must state the amount of loss | Dorn: no dollar amount required; sufficient to state loss to extent of knowledge and belief | Department: GTCA requires explicit amount of loss in notice | Yes; notice must state the amount of the loss claimed |
| Was Dorn’s notice sufficient despite lack of precise dollar amount | Dorn relied on imperfect information, but stated value of loss as death’s monetary value | General claim of damages without amount fails § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) | Insufficient; amount not stated within knowledge and belief as practicable |
| Does strict compliance apply and is noncompliance excused by pro se status | Pro se status should excuse or minimize technical deficiencies | Strict compliance required; pro se status does not excuse | Strict compliance required; pro se status does not excuse |
| Prejudice to State from noncompliance | State suffered no prejudice | Prejudice not required if notice deficient under statute | Prejudice need not be shown; failure to comply bars waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (2009) (review of immunity waiver and notice sufficiency)
- Cummings v. Ga. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (2007) (strict compliance with ante litem notice; agency identification)
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. v. Myers, 295 Ga. 843 (2014) (notice must state amount of loss; lack of amount defeats compliance)
- Driscoll v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 326 Ga. App. 315 (2014) (life-value loss not quantified in notice; reinforces requirement)
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. v. Myers, 295 Ga. 846-847 (2014) (loss amount must be stated within claimant’s knowledge and belief)