Hospital Authority v. Brinson, 330 Ga. App. 212

Background

Infant Kurrenci Brinson, born premature, was brought to South Georgia Medical Center ER on Sept. 24, 2010 with maternal reports of fever, diarrhea, poor oral intake, increased fussiness and abdominal pain; Youth Care (pediatrics) was closed.
Triage nurse assessed the infant as stable/non-urgent (acuity level 4) after a brief exam; physician assistant diagnosed allergic rhinitis/cold, prescribed oral steroid, and discharged with follow-up instructions; supervising physician co-signed.
Three days later the infant returned with high fever and signs of systemic infection; testing revealed bacteremia leading to streptococcal meningitis and stroke with permanent injury.
Plaintiff sued for malpractice, alleging failure to perform a septic workup and provide emergency care on Sept. 24; plaintiff’s experts said the infant’s age and history made emergency evaluation necessary.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing OCGA § 51-1-29.5(c) (ER statute) requires clear-and-convincing proof of gross negligence because the baby had an emergency condition; plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment arguing the infant was stable and received no emergency care so ordinary negligence applies.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff, holding ER statute did not apply as a matter of law; defendants appealed. Appellate court reversed that ruling in part, finding factual issues for a jury on whether the ER statute applies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 51-1-29.5(c) (gross-negligence standard) applies	Brinson: infant presented stable, received no emergency care, so ordinary negligence standard governs	Defendants: infant actually had an emergency condition (early systemic infection); statute applies and plaintiff must prove gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence	Reversed trial court: whether ER statute applies is for the jury; factual question exists whether symptoms were acute enough to trigger statute
Whether trial court properly granted partial summary judgment that ER statute did not apply	Brinson: record shows non-urgent presentation and no emergency treatment	Defendants: trial court erred by focusing on subjective presentation; actual medical condition controls	Court: trial court erred to resolve as matter of law; factual disputes preclude summary disposition
Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff cannot show gross negligence	Brinson: N/A for this appeal (primary argument was statute inapplicable)	Defendants: even if statute applies, plaintiff failed to prove gross negligence	Court: denied defendants’ summary judgment; whether gross negligence proven is jury question
Whether appellate record omission required affirmance of trial court	Brinson: defendants omitted depositions relied upon below, so affirmance required	Defendants: supplemented record with omitted depositions; appellate court should reach merits	Appellate court exercised discretion to allow supplementation and decided merits; did not auto‑affirm

Key Cases Cited

Miller Grading Contractors v. Ga. Fed. Savings & Loan Assn., 247 Ga. 730 (appellant bears burden to include record necessary to show error)
Brown v. Frachiseur, 247 Ga. 463 (appellate review of summary judgment requires record enabling determination whether genuine issues remain)
Abdel-Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 (de novo review of summary judgment; analysis of ER statute application)
Bonds v. Nesbitt, 322 Ga. App. 852 (statutory inquiry focuses on patient’s actual condition and stabilization exclusion)
Quinney v. Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp., 325 Ga. App. 112 (distinguishing presentation vs. stabilization under ER statute)
Howland v. Wadsworth, 324 Ga. App. 175 (jury question whether patient assessed non-urgent nonetheless received emergency medical care)
Rohatensky v. Woodall, 257 Ga. App. 801 (appellant may omit portions of record not material to issues raised on appeal)