Nguyen v. Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C.
298 Ga. 75
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Six-month-old Keira fell from a bed, developed a large bump on her head, and was taken to Phoebe Putney ER on July 7, 2007.
- Triage paramedic assigned a non-emergency priority; a physician’s assistant (Heyer) examined Keira ~10 minutes, documented a posterior scalp contusion, found her stable, and discharged her with return precautions.
- Two days later Keira stopped breathing, was readmitted with a skull fracture and large subdural hematoma, underwent emergency neurosurgery, and suffered severe, permanent brain injury.
- Parents sued ER providers for malpractice, alleging failure to properly evaluate/diagnose/treat the head injury; they moved for partial summary judgment that OCGA § 51-1-29.5 (the ER statute) did not apply.
- Trial court granted Parents’ motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was some evidence to trigger the ER statute; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 51-1-29.5 applies to claims based on care provided in an ER | Parents: statute requires both provider belief of emergency care and patient’s acute/severe symptoms; here neither exists so statute doesn’t apply | Providers: statute applies to care provided in the ER and should apply where bona fide emergency services were provided in the ER | The court held the statute may apply: (1) application requires more than ER location — an objective showing of "emergency medical care"; (2) whether symptoms were acute/severe is a fact question for the jury under summary judgment standard |
| Definition/meaning of "bona fide emergency services" | Parents: trial court (and Parents) read this to require provider’s good-faith belief they were providing emergency care | Providers: services in the ER evaluating/treating patients are bona fide emergency services even if later judged non-emergent | Court: "bona fide" is objective ("genuine/actual"); focus on services rendered, not provider’s subjective belief |
| Whether the patient’s symptoms must objectively manifest acute/severe condition at time of ER visit | Parents: because providers classified Keira as non-urgent and records show a small contusion, symptoms were not acute/severe | Providers: evidence (infant fall, mother’s description of large swelling) could show acute/severe symptoms sufficient to trigger statute | Court: objective test — symptoms manifest at time of ER visit control; here conflicting evidence (parents’ description vs providers’ records) creates triable issue on applicability |
| Proper standard at summary judgment when statute’s applicability is disputed | Parents: trial court applied their view and granted partial SJ | Providers: disputed evidence should be viewed in favor of nonmovant; credibility and inference issues for jury | Court: reaffirmed standard — view evidence for nonmovant, resolve credibility and inferences for jury; trial court erred in granting partial SJ to Parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (statutory interpretation rules; give plain meaning to text)
- Abdel-Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 ("bona fide" means "genuine or actual" emergency services)
- Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (summary judgment standard; evidence for nonmovant credited and all inferences drawn in their favor)
- Howland v. Wadsworth, 324 Ga. App. 175 (physician’s assessment is evidence of stabilization but not controlling)
- Bonds v. Nesbitt, 322 Ga. App. 852 (patient’s condition controls applicability; statute focuses on symptoms shown)
- Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta/Lowndes County v. Brinson, 330 Ga. App. 212 (later developments after ER visit generally not relevant to whether ER statute applies)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment principles on weighing credibility and evidence)