Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Nguyen
330 Ga. App. 156
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Six‑month‑old Keira fell, struck her head, and was taken to Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital ER where a physician’s assistant (Heyer) diagnosed a scalp contusion and discharged her the same evening.
- No attending ER physician was called and no radiology studies were ordered during the initial visit.
- Three days later Keira returned in respiratory distress; CT revealed a very large subdural hematoma and she later suffered severe, permanent neurological injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and moved for partial summary judgment arguing the care provided was not “emergency medical care” under OCGA § 51‑1‑29.5, so defendants could be held to ordinary negligence rather than the statute’s gross negligence standard.
- Trial court granted plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment; defendants obtained interlocutory review.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding whether care constituted statutory "emergency medical care" (triggering gross negligence and clear‑and‑convincing burdens) is for the jury on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of OCGA § 51‑1‑29.5 (emergency medical care/gross negligence standard) | Keira was not given “emergency medical care” because providers did not diagnose a serious condition, so ordinary negligence applies | Providers acted in an ER and thus statutory emergency‑care protections (gross negligence burden) apply | Reversed: question is factual for jury whether care was “emergency medical care”; trial court erred to decide for plaintiffs as a matter of law |
| Whether provider acted in “bona fide” emergency | Plaintiff: no bona fide emergency; diagnosis of contusion shows non‑emergency | Defendant: examination and diagnosis in ER can qualify as bona fide emergency care | Court: bona fide means genuine; good‑faith ER diagnosis can be emergency care — jury must decide |
| Whether a mistaken classification (nonurgent/stable) precludes statute | Plaintiff: classification as nonurgent means statute inapplicable | Defendant: mistaken classification may still allow statutory protections | Court: prior decisions show mistaken classification is for jury to weigh; not decided as matter of law |
| Whether record establishes emergency care as a matter of law (defendant alternative) | N/A at trial (defendants did not move below) | Defendants (on appeal) contend emergency care should apply as matter of law | Court declined to reach defendants’ unraised summary judgment theory; remanded to jury determination if contested |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Gwinnett Hosp. System, 263 Ga. App. 554 (summary judgment standard)
- Ethridge v. Davis, 243 Ga. App. 11 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Nisbet v. Davis, 327 Ga. App. 559 (elements required for § 51‑1‑29.5 to apply)
- Abdel‑Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 ("bona fide emergency services" means genuine; good faith treatment can qualify)
- Howland v. Wadsworth, 324 Ga. App. 175 (whether care is "emergency medical care" is a question for the jury)
- Bonds v. Nesbitt, 322 Ga. App. 852 (jury decides applicability of gross negligence standard even if stabilization evidence exists)
- Quinney v. Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp., 325 Ga. App. 112 (gross negligence standard may apply as a matter of law when patient never stabilized)
- Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827 (issues must be raised in trial court to be considered on appeal)
- Whisenhunt v. Allen Parker Co., 119 Ga. App. 813 (appealable orders include grants of summary judgment on issues)
- Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485 (interlocutory appeal practice regarding grants of summary judgment)