Hobbs v. Great Expressions Dental Centers of Georgia, P.C.
337 Ga. App. 248
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Terry E. Hobbs, Sr. filed a verified complaint against Great Expressions Dental Centers alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, punitive damages, and attorney fees based on dentists’ failure to properly perform and complete implant-related dental procedures.
- Hobbs alleged substandard dental care and that Great Expressions’ dentists negligently performed or failed to complete paid services.
- Great Expressions moved to dismiss, arguing Hobbs’ claims sounded in professional negligence and required an expert affidavit under OCGA § 9-11-9.1.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Hobbs’ complaint for failure to file the required expert affidavit, without addressing other defenses.
- On appeal, Hobbs argued his breach of contract claim did not sound in malpractice and that his fraud claim did not require an expert affidavit because it alleged intentional misrepresentations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach of contract claim requires expert affidavit under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 | Hobbs: claim is breach of bargain for services paid for, not professional malpractice | Great Expressions: claim rests on negligent performance of professional services and thus requires an expert affidavit | Held: Dismissal of breach of contract claim affirmed; substance of claim sounded in professional negligence and required an affidavit (affirmed in part) |
| Whether fraud claim requires expert affidavit under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 | Hobbs: fraud (intentional misrepresentation) does not require an expert affidavit | Great Expressions: argued affidavit required; also later argued lack of justifiable reliance (not raised below) | Held: Fraud claim did not require an expert affidavit because it alleged intentional deception; dismissal as to fraud reversed (reversed in part) |
| Whether trial court may be affirmed on other grounds (e.g., reliance) | Hobbs: not applicable | Great Expressions: argued Hobbs couldn’t show justifiable reliance because he sought a refund (not argued below) | Held: Appellate court declined to decide unraised grounds; did not affirm on other reasons |
| Whether breach of covenant claim reviewed | Hobbs: did not challenge dismissal | Great Expressions: n/a | Held: Court did not address because plaintiff did not challenge dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortson v. Freeman, 313 Ga. App. 326 (expert affidavit required where complaint’s substance raised professional negligence)
- Hodge v. Jennings Mill, 215 Ga. App. 507 (breach of contract sounding in malpractice requires expert affidavit)
- Crawford v. Johnson, 227 Ga. App. 548 (claims predicated on negligent professional services fall within OCGA § 9-11-9.1)
- Labovitz v. Hopkinson, 271 Ga. 330 (intentional torts against professionals, including fraud, do not require expert affidavit)
- Walker v. Wallis, 289 Ga. App. 676 (fraud claims against professionals not subject to OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affidavit requirement)
- Murrah v. Fender, 282 Ga. App. 634 (same)
- Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. (appellate courts will not affirm on grounds not raised below)