Thomas v. Tenet Healthsystem Gb, Inc.
340 Ga. App. 70
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2012 Thomas was in a car crash, taken to Atlanta Medical Center (AMC), and had a cervical CT read by Dr. Grossman who reported no fracture; Dr. Lowman then ordered removal of her cervical collar and discharge.
- After being placed in a wheelchair, Thomas became unresponsive, was reexamined, and was found to have a displaced cervical fracture producing spinal cord compression and quadriplegia.
- Thomas sued in May 2014 for professional negligence against Drs. Lowman and Grossman and vicariously against AMC; during discovery she learned of an AMC policy and that a nurse (not a physician) removed the collar contrary to policy.
- In August 2015 Thomas filed a second amended complaint adding counts against AMC: negligent credentialing (Count 8), negligent failure to train (Count 9), and simple negligence based on the nurse’s conduct (Count 10).
- AMC moved to dismiss the new counts as time‑barred; the trial court dismissed Count 10 (simple negligence by nursing staff) as not relating back to the original complaint but allowed Counts 8 and 9 to proceed.
- Thomas appealed, arguing Count 10 related back under OCGA § 9‑11‑15(c); the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Count 10.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 10 (simple negligence by AMC nurse) relates back to original complaint under OCGA § 9‑11‑15(c) | The amended claim arises from the same general fact situation (removal of C‑collar by AMC personnel) discovered in discovery, so it relates back and is timely | The new claim is a different cause based on conduct by nursing staff and thus does not arise from the same conduct/occurrence; it is time‑barred | Reversed: Count 10 relates back because both pleadings put AMC on fair notice that its personnel removed the collar; amendment construed liberally under § 9‑11‑15(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Engler, 317 Ga. 879 (plaintiff may amend ordinary negligence claim to add professional negligence when amendment arises from same general facts; relation‑back approved)
- Deering v. Keever, 282 Ga. 161 (OCGA § 9‑11‑15 should be construed liberally to allow amendments)
- Walker County v. Tri‑State Crematory, 292 Ga. App. 411 (standard of review for motion to dismiss is de novo)
- Thomas v. Medical Center of Central Georgia, 286 Ga. App. 147 (distinguished: there amendment raised professional malpractice against different professionals and was analyzed under OCGA § 9‑11‑9.1 rather than § 9‑11‑15)