Parker v. Vaughan (1971)

But see Parker v. Vaughan, 183 S.E.2d 605, 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971) (applying the discovery rule in the limited medical malpractice context where a foreign object is left in a patient’s body).

As noted by Cicero in his commentaries: "There cannot be one law for Rome and another law for Athens." See also Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 304 ( 183 SE2d 605 ) (1971) (Eberhardt, J., dissenting).

A. Yes.” We are bound by the whole court case of Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 303 ( 183 SE2d 605 ), specially limiting the notion of a continuing medical tort in cases where the surgeon affirmatively inserts the foreign body, such as in this case, a steel arterial clamp, without later removing this object from the body.

This section provides that: "None of the limitations of section 3-1102 [governing actions for medical malpractice] shall apply where a foreign object has been left in a patient's body, but an action shall then be brought within one year after such negligent or wrongful act or omission is discovered." Code Ann. § 3-1103 is a legislative adoption of the doctrine of continuing tort which was announced by this court in Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 302 ( 183 SE2d 605 ).

And, as argued by Norred, such an interpretation of the statute would allow a defendant-doctor to 4 We note that in Spivey, supra, the Georgia Supreme Court, in affirming this court on other grounds, declined to rule on whether this court correctly decided that the washer was not a foreign object. 260 Ga. at 504 n.1. 5 As explained in Abend v. Klaudt, 243 Ga. App. 271, 272 (1) ( 531 SE2d 722 ) (2000), “[b]y requiring in OCGA § 9-3-72 that a patient who claims a foreign objec…

As explained in Abend v. Klaudt, 243 Ga. App. 271, 272 (1) ( 531 SE2d 722 ) (2000), “[b]y requiring in OCGA § 9-3-72 that a patient who claims a foreign object was negligently left in their body must file an action within one year after the negligent act or omission is discovered, the legislature adopted the continuing tort rule announced in Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 302 ( 183 SE2d 605 ) (1971).” See Abend, supra, 243 Ga. App. at 275-276 (2) (e); Karafotias v. Coy…

Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga.App. 300, 302 , 183 S.E.2d 605, 606 (1971).

By requiring in OCGA § 9-3-72 that a patient who claims a foreign object was negligently left in their body must file an action within one year after the negligent act or omission is discovered, the legislature adopted the continuing tort rule announced in Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 302 ( 183 SE2d 605 ) (1971).

See, e.g., Shillady v. Elliot, 114 N.H. 321, 323 , 320 A.2d 637, 638 (1974); Parker v. Vaughn, 124 Ga. App. 300, 301 , 183 S.E.2d 605, 606 (1971); Billings v. Sister of Mercy, 86 Idaho 485 , ___, 389 P.2d 224, 232 (1964); and Gaddis v. Smith, 417 S.W.2d 577, 580 (Tex. 1967).

See also Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 302-303 ( 183 SE2d 605 ) (1971) (foreign object left in patient’s body).

See Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300 ( 183 SE2d 605 ) (1971), which adopted the theory of a continuing tort when a foreign object is left in the body; see also Clark v. Mem.

Compare Silvertooth v. Shallenberger, 49 Ga. App. 133 , 174 S.E. 365 and 49 Ga. App. 758 , 176 S.E. 829 (1934) with Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300 , 183 S.E. 2d 605 (1971); compare, Tortorello, supra, and Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434 , 173 A. 2d 277 (1961), with Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332 , 162 A. 601 (1932); and compare Hotelling v. Walther, 169 Or. 559 , 130 P. 2d 944 (1942) with Wilder v. Haworth, 187 Or. 688 , 213 P. 2d 797 (1950) overruled, Frohs v.…

See also Parker v. Vaughan, 124 Ga. App. 300, 304 ( 183 SE 2d 605 ) (rule stated in dissenting opinion).