Keyla Connie v. Robert P. Garnett, A21A0413

Background:

On Oct. 11, 2014 Connie (age 29) presented to Doctors Hospital of Augusta (DHA) ER with severe right lower‑leg pain; PA Melissa Turner examined her, documented pulses present, and ordered a venous duplex ultrasound for possible DVT.
Dr. William Hiltz reviewed the venous duplex and found no DVT; Turner discharged Connie with pain medication and follow‑up instructions. Dr. Robert Garnett later reviewed and signed Turner’s chart as supervising physician but was not present during the encounter.
Three days later Connie was diagnosed with right lower extremity ischemia, underwent tibial thrombectomy, and ultimately suffered partial amputation in December 2014.
Connie sued in June 2016; she filed a second amended complaint adding Turner on Oct. 7, 2016 but did not obtain leave to amend or serve Turner before the two‑year statute of limitations expired on Oct. 11, 2016.
The trial court denied Connie’s post‑limitation motion to add Turner and dismissed Turner for lack of notice; the court granted summary judgment to Garnett. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial re: Turner but reversed the grant of summary judgment to Garnett.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Connie could add Turner after limitations expired (relation‑back under OCGA § 9‑11‑15(c))	Connie: claims against Turner arise from same facts; notice to supervising physician Garnett equated to notice to Turner, so amendment should relate back	Turner: no notice of the lawsuit before limitations ran; plaintiff failed to obtain leave to add Turner; therefore amendment was ineffective and barred by limitations	Affirmed. Amendment did not relate back — Turner lacked notice of the suit and did not know she would have been sued but for a mistake.
Whether Garnett was entitled to summary judgment on standard of care (emergency care / gross negligence)	Connie: treatment in ER was emergency medical care; question of fact exists whether she was stabilized, so gross‑negligence standard may not apply	Garnett: no evidence of breach; if gross‑negligence standard applies, Connie cannot meet clear‑and‑convincing proof requirement	Reversed. Triable issue whether Connie was stabilized (a jury question); summary judgment improper on standard‑of‑care issue.
Whether Garnett was entitled to summary judgment on causation	Connie: expert affidavits opine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that appropriate arterial testing/ referral would likely have detected and prevented progression, avoiding amputation	Garnett: experts’ depositions did not definitively say, more‑likely‑than‑not, that toes would have been saved; alleged insufficiency of causation evidence	Reversed. Expert affidavits created a jury question on proximate cause; contradictions affect credibility, not admissibility.

Key Cases Cited

Wright v. Safari Club Int’l, 322 Ga. App. 486 (2013) (amendment adding new party without leave is ineffective)
Cobb v. Stephens, 186 Ga. App. 648 (1988) (elements for relation‑back under OCGA § 9‑11‑15(c))
Fontaine v. Home Depot, Inc., 250 Ga. App. 123 (2001) (notice to a related corporate defendant may suffice where identities/agents overlap)
Rasheed v. Klopp Enterprises, 276 Ga. App. 91 (2005) (shared ownership, registered agent, counsel can supply notice for relation‑back)
Beaver v. Steinichen, 182 Ga. App. 303 (1987) (refusing relation‑back where plaintiff sought to add new, ‘‘stranger’’ defendants to hospital suit)
St. Francis Health v. Weng, 354 Ga. App. 310 (2020) (relation‑back requires notice of the institution of the action itself, not merely notice of the incident)
Southwestern Emergency Physicians v. Nguyen, 330 Ga. App. 156 (2014) (three‑part test for application of OCGA § 51‑1‑29.5 to emergency care)
Bonds v. Nesbitt, 322 Ga. App. 852 (2013) (patient’s condition, not physician’s opinion, controls whether patient stabilized for statute’s emergency‑care exception)
Howland v. Wadsworth, 324 Ga. App. 175 (2013) (question of fact exists as to whether ER patient stabilized where complaints persisted)
Knight v. Roberts, 316 Ga. App. 599 (2012) (expert evidence can create jury issue on causation where earlier diagnosis/treatment likely would have prevented harm)
Naik v. Booker, 303 Ga. App. 282 (2010) (conflicts between expert affidavit and deposition go to credibility for the jury)