Yugueros v. Robles
300 Ga. 58
| Ga. | 2016

Background

  • Plaintiff Rudy Robles sued Dr. Patricia Yugueros and Artisan Plastic Surgery after his wife, Iselda Moreno, died following post-operative complications; Robles also designated GMC and physicians Violette and York as potentially liable non-parties.
  • Artisan was served with an OCGA § 9-11-30(b)(6) notice to produce an organizational representative; Artisan designated Dr. Diane Alexander (founder/co-owner) who testified in deposition about the standard of care and that a CT scan would have been appropriate.
  • At trial defendants moved to exclude Dr. Alexander’s testimony on grounds it did not satisfy OCGA § 24-7-702 (expert admissibility), and that she had not been disclosed as an expert and that her testimony contained hearsay; the trial court excluded the testimony and the jury returned a defense verdict.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the deposition was admissible under OCGA § 9-11-32(a)(2) as an adverse party’s deposition usable "for any purpose," and thus not subject to the expert‑testimony gatekeeping rules.
  • The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a deposition of an organizational representative taken under OCGA § 9-11-30(b)(6) may be admitted at trial without satisfying OCGA § 24-7-702.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether a deposition of an org rep under OCGA § 9-11-30(b)(6) is admissible at trial without satisfying OCGA § 24-7-702 Robles: such depositions are admissible under OCGA § 9-11-32(a)(2) “for any purpose,” including opinions on standard of care Yugueros/Artisan: testimony alleging standard of care is expert opinion and must meet OCGA § 24-7-702 requirements Held: OCGA § 9-11-32(a)(2) does not override evidence rules; expert-opinion deposition testimony must satisfy OCGA § 24-7-702 and trial court gatekeeping role remains intact
Whether OCGA § 9-11-32(a)(2) creates a separate evidentiary route making expert rules inapplicable Robles: § 9-11-32(a)(2) allows adverse-party depositions to be used for any purpose without reference to expert-admissibility rules Defendants: § 9-11-32(a)(2) must be read with § 9-11-32(a) requiring depositions be admissible under rules of evidence Held: § 9-11-32(a)(2) is one of the provisions within § 9-11-32(a); depositions are admissible only "so far as admissible under the rules of evidence," so expert rules apply
Whether the trial court abused its discretion excluding the testimony for failure to meet expert requirements Robles: Court of Appeals treated exclusion as abuse because deposition was a party admission, not expert testimony Defendants: trial court properly acted as gatekeeper under OCGA § 24-7-702 and excluded testimony that lacked required facts/data and expert disclosure Held: Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals, ruling the trial court’s gatekeeper role under § 24-7-702 applies; appellate review of such evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion (case remanded)
Whether designation under § 9-11-30(b)(6) relieves the designating party of expert-disclosure/qualification duties Robles: § 9-11-30(b)(6) deposition notice obligated Artisan to provide a qualified expert and thus no further expert-disclosure constraints apply Defendants: designation does not waive OCGA § 24-7-702 requirements; qualification and sufficient facts/data must still be shown Held: The Court did not decide threshold qualification/disclosure facts here (beyond scope of certiorari), but made clear § 24-7-702 requirements remain applicable

Key Cases Cited

  • Robles v. Yugueros, 335 Ga. App. 324 (Court of Appeals of Ga. 2015) (Court of Appeals decision treating organizational rep deposition as admission usable for any purpose)
  • Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692 (Ga. 2013) (appellate review of trial court’s decision to admit expert evidence is for abuse of discretion)
  • HNTB Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (Ga. 2010) (trial court’s role as gatekeeper for expert testimony under OCGA § 24-7-702)
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
  • Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (standards for appellate review of expert admissibility rulings)
  • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Read the full case