Knight v. Roberts
316 Ga. App. 599
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Knight sued Dr. Roberts, Dr. Cone, and TMC for medical malpractice alleging misdiagnosis of an aortic dissection caused Mrs. Knight’s death.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Roberts but denied Cone and TMC summary judgments; it also denied TMC’s motion to exclude Knight’s nurse expert.
- Court consolidated Cone and TMC appeals with Knight’s cross-appeal of Roberts, reviewing de novo the summary judgment rulings.
- Experts testified that an initial timely CT scan could have diagnosed dissection earlier and improved survival; Roberts allegedly deviated from standard of care by not pursuing dissection as a diagnosis.
- Timeline: Feb 17 ER visit with chest pain; CT not performed promptly; Dissection diagnosed later, transfer to specialty centers, and eventual death on Feb 27 after surgery was deemed futile due to dissection progression and prior blood thinner use.
- Court held there was a genuine issue of material fact on causation and proximate cause, reversing Roberts’ summary judgment but affirming Cone and TMC on other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: did Roberts’s misdiagnosis causally contribute to death? | Knight argues misdiagnosis delayed treatment, worsening dissection and death. | Roberts contends no sufficient expert causation tying the delay to death. | Question for jury on causation; summary judgment reversed for Roberts. |
| Causation: did Cone’s failures proximately cause death? | Knight asserts Cone failed to diagnose/discover dissection and delayed surgery. | Cone argues absence of proven proximate causation by his actions. | Question for jury on causation; summary judgment denied for Cone. |
| Nursing triage and treatment delay: did ER nurses’ conduct proximately cause death? | Knight asserts emergent triage and prompt treatment were required; delays worsened outcome. | TMC argues no causal connection between triage delay and death. | Question for jury; denial of summary judgment upheld for nurses under respondeat superior analysis. |
| Expert qualification: was nurse Churbock properly qualified under OCGA 24-9-67.1? | Churbock has sufficient experience and training to provide expert testimony. | Qualification challenges based on credentials/testimony conflicts. | Court did not abuse discretion; nurse qualified to testify as an expert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Giles, 276 Ga. App. 632 (Ga. App. 2005) (medical causation and expert testimony required for proximate causation)
- Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2003) (three elements of medical liability; causation standard and expert necessity)
- Naik v. Booker, 303 Ga. App. 282 (Ga. App. 2010) (delayed diagnosis denying salvageable outcome; denial of summary judgment for physician)
- MCG Health v. Barton, 285 Ga. App. 577 (Ga. App. 2007) (delay in diagnosis preventing emergency surgery; jury question on causation)
- Walker v. Giles, 276 Ga. App. 641 (Ga. App. 2005) (continuum of negligence; several related acts may establish proximate cause)
- Schriever v. Maddox, 259 Ga. App. 558 (Ga. App. 2003) (subsequent negligent acts may compound initial negligence)
- Allen v. Family Medical Center, 287 Ga. App. 522 (Ga. App. 2007) (expert credentials and standards in medical testimony; admissibility context)
- Grady Gen. Hosp. v. King, 288 Ga. App. 101 (Ga. App. 2007) (nursing standards and professional malpractice framework)
- Renz v. Northside Hosp., 285 Ga. App. 882 (Ga. App. 2007) (nurse and hospital liability; expert testimony and causation framework)