Hand v. South Georgia Urology Center, P.C., 332 Ga. App. 148

In 2006 Dr. Gilbert Gonzalez performed transurethral microwave thermotherapy (Targis device) on George Hand; Hand later developed a rectal-urethral fistula requiring multiple surgeries.
Hands sued Gonzalez and his practice for medical malpractice, alleging improper placement/monitoring of the Targis rectal thermometer and device malfunction.
During discovery Gonzalez testified he stopped using the device after Hand’s injury because he lost faith in it and believed it malfunctioned; Hands did not inspect the device then.
At trial a device (assumed to be the same model) was brought for demonstrative purposes; when Hands’ counsel powered it up, stored data appeared to show Gonzalez used the device on six patients after learning of Hand’s injury.
The trial court excluded the device data as impeachment evidence because Hands had not sought inspection during discovery; the jury returned a defense verdict and the court denied a new trial.
On appeal the court reversed, holding exclusion of the impeaching data was an abuse of discretion and remanded for a new trial; it affirmed rulings denying a spoliation instruction and excluding cross-examination about a past license suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of device data for impeachment	Data contradicted Gonzalez’s deposition/trial testimony that he stopped using device; admissible to impeach credibility	Data should be excluded because Hands failed to request device inspection in discovery / procedural default	Reversed: exclusion was abuse of discretion; impeachment evidence should have been admitted; new trial ordered
Jury instruction on spoliation (OCGA § 24-14-22)	Court should instruct jury because original device was replaced and relevant evidence may have been lost	No notice of contemplated litigation to defendant or manufacturer when device was replaced; no spoliation shown	Affirmed: no spoliation instruction; no evidence defendant had notice of pending litigation when device was replaced
Cross-examination about prior medical-license suspension	Gonzalez’s statement that he practiced continuously opened the door to ask about prior suspension	Prior suspension was remote in time, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial	Affirmed: exclusion proper; past suspension immaterial to care at issue
Sufficiency of evidence supporting verdict	Hands argued evidence did not support defense verdict	Defendants argued sufficient evidence supported verdict	Court did not address because new trial ordered on impeachment ground

Ballard v. Meyers, 275 Ga. 819 (2002) (impeaching documents need not be listed in pretrial order; exclusion can improperly shield witness credibility)
United States v. Castillo, 181 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal Rule 607 and impeachment-by-contradiction allow extrinsic evidence to show witness falsehood)
City of Atlanta v. Bennett, 322 Ga. App. 726 (2013) (Georgia favors admission of relevant evidence even with low probative value)
Silman v. Assocs. Bellemeade, 286 Ga. 27 (2009) (spoliation instruction requires showing of withheld evidence and notice of contemplated litigation)
Wheeler v. Stewart, 234 Ga. App. 714 (1998) (evidence remote in time and unrelated to treatment is inadmissible as irrelevant and prejudicial)