Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575

Plaintiff David Dubois underwent a laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair by Dr. Damon Brantley and developed acute pancreatitis after a pancreatic puncture from a trocar; significant post-op complications followed.
Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice, alleging negligent insertion of the primary trocar.
Plaintiffs submitted affidavits from Dr. Steven E. Swartz (general surgeon) as their expert; Swartz regularly performs abdominal laparoscopic procedures and trocar insertions but has performed at most one laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair in the last five years.
Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing Swartz is unqualified under OCGA § 24-7-702(c)(2)(A) because he had not performed the same specific procedure (laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair) three of the last five years.
The trial court qualified Swartz; the Court of Appeals reversed holding Swartz failed the statutory test as a matter of law.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding Rule 702(c)(2)(A) requires a judge to assess whether the expert has an "appropriate level of knowledge" (fact-specific, discretionary gatekeeping), not a rigid requirement that the expert personally performed the identical procedure three of the last five years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 24-7-702(c)(2)(A) requires an expert to have performed the identical procedure three of the last five years	Swartz has sufficient experience with trocar insertion in abdominal laparoscopic procedures to opine on the trocar insertion here	Rule 702(c)(2)(A) mandates the expert actually performed the same procedure (laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair) three of last five years; Swartz did not	An expert need only have an "appropriate level of knowledge" about performing the procedure at issue as determined by the judge; courts exercise flexible gatekeeping discretion, not a categorical bar

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial courts act as gatekeepers for expert reliability)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804 (Ga. 2007) (Rule 702(c)(2) requires significant familiarity with the area of practice for the proposed opinion)
Brantley v. Dubois, 327 Ga. App. 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (Court of Appeals’ prior decision reversing trial court on expert qualification)
Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692 (Ga. 2013) (Rule 702(c) sets specific requirements for professional malpractice experts)