*1 whiсh infects the so cause of action that to entertain it directly would be violative It of conscience. must relate concerning complaint the transaction which is made. The equitable rights respecting subject-matter rule refers to оf the action. It does not embrace outside matters. (Citations omitted.) punctuation and v. Maddox, Partain allegations
623, Here, there are no anything unjust unfair, that there was “violative conscience” buy-sell agreement. Accordingly, about the clause the shareholder correctly employees’ equitable trial court held defenses inapplicable specific performance were agreement. to Intercat’s claim for 407) Clark, See Saine v. Ga. (1975) (although party seeking specific performance must show compensation adequate, contract fair and the it well adequacy established that fairness of the contract and the existing consideration must be tested the facts and conditions at made); Zaglin, supra. the time the contract was
Judgment Bernes, J., J., Ruffin, P. concur. affirmed.
Decided October
Reconsideration denied November Spears appellants. Thomerson, Robl, Robl, & Michael D. for Levy, Tyus Bouhan, Seiler, Butler, Jr., Williams & Frank W. M. appellee.
for A08A1199, A08A1200. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF VALDOSTA al.;
AND LOWNDES COUNTY v. MEEKS et and vice versa. Judge.
Andrews, Thurman Meeks’s wife Jeannette died after a cardiaс catheter- placement procedure performed Terry ization and stent Tri (SGMC). Georgia South Medical Tri Center Meeks sued and SGMC malpractice damages arising for medical and for from SGMC’s processes. SGMC filed a motion to portions complaint, claiming strike it violated OCGA §§ relating confidentiality 31-7-143, 31-7-133 and of medical and hospital peer hospital peer review commit- protective relating tees’ from suit. also filed a order SGMC interrogatories requests production to certain of documents *2 by alleging
propounded Meeks, information and documents the privileged sought absolutely and nondiscoverable under the were Georgia statutes cited above. medical review and hearing, of trial court that “the contents After a the ruled including files, SGMC’s SGMC’s credentialing review and subject regarding Tri, to not files are ruling granted We of those files.” This limited to contents interlocutory application order. review of this For the SGMC’s following reasons, we reverse. part provides pertinent
1. OCGA 31-7-133 [ejxcept alleging proceedings article, violation of this organization records of a review be and discovery subject and shall not be to held confidence any . . . The civil action. con- introduction into evidence apply any fidentiality provisions of this article shall also findings, proceedings, actions, evidence, records, activities, opinions, evaluations, data, or other in- recommendations, organizations which between review are formation shared performing govern- to a review function or disclosed a by agency required mental law. as gives exceptions The Code also two above confi- section dentiality provisions. Any documents, or
information, records otherwisе available original not to as from sources are be construed immune merely action from or use such civil they presented during proceedings because were such any person organization, testifies nor should who before organization organization such or who a member of such testifying prevented as within be from to matters such person’s knowledge; such witness cannot asked testimony about such witness’s before such opinions result of about formed such witness as a organization hearings. (a). § 31-7-133
OCGA
Similarly, 31-7-143 OCGA proceedings and records of medical review committees shall subject evidence in not be any or introduction into provider against professional civil health action arising services out of the matters which are thе . evaluation review such committee. . . Assembly placed embargo
Thus, “the General has an absolute upon proceedings, findings records, use all groups recommendations of and medical review commit- litigation.” Emory tees in civil Houston, Cliniс v. only
Here, the trial court has held that actually documents contained medical and was files *3 privileged, produce and has ordered SGMC all other information actually and documentation not contained in those files. peer prоtect proceed-
The medical review statutes all ings organization, just and information aof not what physical exceptions, included the With above, files. certain as stated protections Hosp., are See Patton absolute. v. St. Frаncis 246 Ga. (539 526) (2000) (“the App. Supreme 4, 6 SE2d Court has held that absolutely both review and medical review are (footnote omitted). privileged”) Accordingly, to the extent that the exceptions trial court has written additional not allowed either law, the оr statute the case that order is reversed. argues granting
2. SGMC also that the trial erred in not court its paragraphs complaint. motion to strike certain in the As SGMC points granted outs, trial the court neither nor its denied motion to properly e.g., See, strike. this issue is not before us. App. Bank, Reece v. Chestatee State 260 Ga. (where (2003) ruling appellant court, fails to obtain a the trial this appeal); App. State, Court cannot consider the issue on Lee v. 255 Ga. 902) (2002) (because appеllant failed to failing a obtain ruling, her sole enumeration that the court erred in to exclude review). testimony presents nothing for us to cross-appeals, claiming A08A1200,
3. In Case No. Meeks trial determining court erred in in SGMC’s agree files is We that the order is оverbroad. (a) (3) § hospital provide OCGA 31-7-15 that a “[t]he qualifi- evaluation of medical and health or care services professional competence persons performing cations and or seek- ing such services.” The evaluations
may performed by “peer committee,” a defined as local or physicians appointed by a committee a or state specialty society appointed by governing or hospital ambulatory board or medical staff оf a licensed surgical pursuant center or other formed engaged by hospital to state or federal law and ambulatory surgical purpose performing center for the required by such functions subsection Code section. (b).
OCGA 31-7-15 Henry App. In McCаll v. Center, Med. 739) (2001), this Court held that “peer the definition of review” contained OCGA 31-7- (1) quality addresses the evaluation of the and effi- ciency of actual medical care services and does not encom- pass every to the extent privileges decision to extend or maintain staff is a requires hospital review function. OCGA 31-7-15 that a professional practice expand establish review; it does not immunity groups the civil otherwise afforded to may perform who the review. . . . Civil will not performing еxtend to a review committee which is not review function. *4 (Footnote omitted.) goes Id. state, McCall on however, that it “do[es] aspect credentialing process not hold that no ais especially process function, if the involves thе evaluation of a physician’s performance procedure. of an actual medical ...” Id. to the extent that the involves performance review committee’s evaluation of Tri’s of medical procedures, the informatiоn is not However, discoverable. to the credentialing extent that there is in information Tri’s files that does performance procedures, not involve evaluations of his of these that holding information is discoverable and the trial court erred in otherwise.
Judgments Bernes, J., reversed. J., concurs. Ruffin, P. concurs in part judgment only. and concurs in the Presiding Judge, concurring part concurring in in RUFFIN, judgment only part. fully agree I concur Divisions and I cannot with the majority’s analysis judgment only 3 and so concur Division in Case No. A08A1200. agree majority
I with the that the trial court’s order is overbroad nothing to the extent “credentialing that it in SGMC’s files” is discoverable. The trial court is unable to make such a sweeping point. determination at I concerned, am however, that majority аpplicable reaching has misconstrued the law its finding that “to the extent there is information in Tri’s perfor- files that does not involve evaluations of his [medical] procedures, mance of that information is discoverable.” (p. Supreme In Jovе,1 Hollowell v. our Court concluded that the protection discovery provided by from OCGA 31-7-143 includes generated in the course medical review com- proceedings physician’s general
mittee which relates to competence, сompetence his to treat the condition from by which the suffered decedent as evidenced his treatment similarly patients competence of other his afflicted procedures specifically other than those subject litigatiоn.2 involved in the protection from
The and records of organizations similarly afforded OCGA is § 31-7-133 There 31-7-143, broad.3 either OCGA 31-7-133 or directly protection issue, the statutes which limits from involving procedure. to information- the evaluation of a medical generated solely Rather, “what not discoverable is . . . records provide peer [gained] exclusively through review or information investigation by peer review, is, the committee for “credentialing relative to medical or review.”4Thus if SGMC’s general cоmpetence, files” include information related to Dr. Tri’s generated exclusively through and the information was a medical proceeding, privileged review or it would be and not subject to *5 Henry applicable
McCall v.
Med.
At
in
Center5 not
here.
issue
quotes
length,
majority
MсCall,
Division 1 of
from which the
was
scope
organizations,6
of civil
afforded to
any analysis
opinion limiting
contained in that
the definition of
procedures
fairly
to the
of
review medical
cannot be
to its
turn,
to include
include
functions or
relating
аnd records of
4 (Citations omitted.)
[6]
[3]
[5]
[2]
[1]
composition,
OCGA 31-7-15
extended to this Even Division attempt apply issue, which did involve a we did not analysis pro contained Division to whether information was (a).8 tected from under OCGA 31-7-133 A08A1200, I Case No. would reverse the trial premature court’s order as overbroad to the extent it discoverable, in SGMC’s files is but limit admissibility direction to the trial court to consider the credentialing files and the information contained therein accor- principles majority dance with the set forth Division of opiniоn.
Decided October
Reconsideration denied November Whitley, Reinhardt, Wilmot, Pittman, Summerlin & Glenn Whit- ley, Talley, Summerlin, Coleman, Kurrie, Karen H. Newbern & Wade Coleman, Jr., Hall, Booth, Slover, Burke, Jr., H. Smith & Thomas M. Anthony appellant. Rowell, New, A. Walter H. Wayne
Adams, Treadwell, Treadwell, Jordan & Marc T. O. appellees. Ellerbee, for
A08A1061. EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
GEORGIA et al. v. MELTON. Judge.
Barnes, Chief The (“ERS”) Employees’ System Georgia Retirement and (“DPS”) Georgia Department Safety (collectively of Public “the Agencies”) by granting summary contend the trial court erred judgment Wayne requiring pay to Robert Melton and them to attorney agree, grant summary judgment fees. We and revеrse the *6 attorney and the award of fees to Melton. that, immunity, It is not clear even in the context of civil we intended in McCall to
strictly procedures: define review functions to the review of medical aspect function, We do not hold that nо is a especially process physician’s performance if the involves the evaluation of a of an procedure, summary judgment merely actual medical is not warranted because Parker, approved appears review committee has and this to be the basis grant summary judgment. for the trial court’s (1). (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 682 (2). See id. at 682-685