Kwee Wong v. Mary L. Chappell
333 Ga. App. 422
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Wong died after a cryoablation procedure performed by Chappell; her husband Kwee Wong sues for medical malpractice.
- Gephart, an unlicensed medical assistant, handled post-procedure calls and advice under physician supervision, allegedly causing negligent care.
- Evidence shows front desk staff misplaced an antibiotic prescription and failed to notify physicians; Gephart allegedly failed to document symptoms and relay concerns.
- Jury returned a defense verdict; Wong appeals the trial court’s jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.
- Court reverses and remands, holding some claims are ordinary negligence (not all claims) and others may involve unlicensed practice or professional negligence.
- Key issues on retrial include whether ordinary negligence instructions are appropriate, whether unlicensed practice and negligence per se apply, and whether manufacturer package inserts or post-procedure guidance establish standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordinary negligence instruction was required | Wong | Chappell/Huffman/Kelley | Reversed; some claims are ordinary negligence, not professional negligence |
| Whether a single professional-negligence standard applied to all claims | Wong | Chappell/Huffman/Kelley | Reversed; ordinary negligence applicable to non-professional acts |
| Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on the unauthorized practice of medicine and negligence per se | Wong | Chappell/Huffman/Kelley | Agreed; issue to be decided by jury on retrial |
| Whether package inserts alone establish the standard of care | Wong | Chappell/Huffman/Kelley | Rejected; standard of care requires expert testimony, not solely manufacturer materials |
| Whether the May 2011 resource guide was admissible and relevant to the standard of care | Wong | Chappell/Huffman/Kelley | Admissible; relevant to standard of care at time of procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Columbus Med. Center Foundation, 243 Ga. App. 749 (Ga. App. 2000) (distinguishes ordinary negligence from professional negligence in some medical claims)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (Ga. 2010) (even with medical questions, expert evidence may be required for causation)
- Stafford-Fox v. Jenkins, 282 Ga. App. 667 (Ga. App. 2006) (professional negligence standard governs claims involving specialized medical judgment)
- Kenney v. Piedmont Hosp., 136 Ga. App. 660 (Ga. App. 1975) (recites medical standard of care and expert testimony generally required)
- Morrison v. Koornick, 201 Ga. App. 367 (Ga. App. 1991) (medical standard is expert-driven unless clear-cut)
- Byrd v. Medical Ctr. of Central Georgia, 258 Ga. App. 286 (Ga. App. 2002) (treatment guidelines as relevant to standard of care)
- Dent v. Memorial Hosp., 270 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1998) (nursing conduct may involve simple negligence if no professional judgment involved)
- Lamb v. Candler Gen. Hosp., 262 Ga. 70 (Ga. 1992) (discusses simple negligence in hospital staff context)
- Brown v. Belinfante, 252 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. App. 2001) (training of hospital staff can involve ordinary negligence)
- Andrews v. Lofton, 80 Ga. App. 723 (Ga. App. 1950) (unlicensed practice context and standards)
- McDaniel v. Hendrix, 260 Ga. 857 (Ga. 1991) (relevant standard of care is medical profession practice under similar circumstances)