MacFarlan v. Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, Inc.
317 Ga. App. 887
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs—Macfarlan’s parents—sued Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, Inc. and Dr. R. Carter Davis for medical malpractice after Macfarlan’s death from metastatic cancer.
- Davis treated Macfarlan beginning in 1994; multiple colonoscopies and biopsies occurred through 2001, with high-grade dysplasia identified in 2001 and referral to a colorectal surgeon.
- Macfarlan died January 25, 2002; suit was filed January 22, 2004, accompanied by an affidavit from Dr. Kaiser alleging deviation from the standard of care in 1994–1995.
- In October 2006 plaintiffs amended the complaint to add FBPA and UDTPA claims and attached an affidavit from Dr. Finkel; the trial court held the original claim time-barred by the five-year repose and the amended claims could not relate back.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants; the court and the appellate court affirmed that the statute of repose barred the action and that amended claims could not revive or relate back; no tolling, fraud, or relation-back exceptions apply.
- Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the five-year statute of ultimate repose bar the 1994–1995 medical-malpractice claims? | Plaintiffs contend that repose should not bar their action. | Davis/AGA argue the five-year repose is absolute and untolled. | Yes, barred by the five-year repose. |
| Can the amended FBPA/UDTPA claims relate back to the original complaint under OCGA 9-11-15(c)? | Amendment relates back to the conduct alleged in the original pleading. | Amendment does not relate back; new/updated conduct after 1995 not within original scope. | No, amended claims do not relate back. |
| Do FBPA/UDTPA claims survive as independent medical-malpractice claims? | Alleged entrepreneurial/business aspects of medical practice exist. | Medical malpractice claims cannot be recast as FBPA/UDTPA claims. | They do not survive; they fail as FBPA/UDTPA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Sonyika, 279 Ga. 378 (2005) (distinguishes limits vs. repose; repose is absolute)
- Siler v. Block, 204 Ga. App. 672 (1992) (repose vs. limitations; distinction maintained)
- Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129 (1993) (renewal of claims not permitted when distinct conduct alleged)
- Wright v. Robinson, 262 Ga. 844 (1993) (repose controls renewal attempts in medical malpractice)
- Frankel v. Clark, 213 Ga. App. 222 (1994) (tolling not permitted for continuing negligence claims beyond repose)
- Smith v. Lockridge, 288 Ga. 180 (2010) (amended medical malpractice claims not necessarily tolling repose)