Hand v. South Georgia Urology Center, P.C. (2015)

Thus, a patient has the right to believe what she is told by her medical doctor about her condition.” Second, the Plaintiffs assert that the court should have charged that: “Physicians are required to inform themselves of their patient’s condition by proper inquiry such as would ordinarily be made under similar circumstances and, upon failure to do so, they are not relieved of liability by error in 21 judgment for a resulting injury.” We conclude that the trial court did not…

The defendant’s duty also does not arise merely because the defendant investigated the incident, because there may be many reasons to investigate incidents causing injuries, from simple curiosity to quality assurance to preparation for possible litigation. 10 Such cases include, but are not limited to, Hand v. South Georgia Urology Center, P.C., 332 Ga. App. at 155 (2); Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga. App. at 806-808 (2); Clayton County v. Austin-Powel…

Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in regard to the spoliation issue cannot be upheld, and to the extent that the Court of Appeals cases dealing with the issue of spoliation may be read as endorsing the erroneous analysis used in this case, they are hereby disapproved in that regard.10 Although the spoliation issue may recur upon any retrial of the present case, the evidence presented on this issue may be different, and the trial court will have to exercise i…

Cf., e.g., Hand v. South Ga. Urology Ctr., 332 Ga. App. 148, 159 ( 769 SE2d 814 ) (2015) (on motion for reconsideration) (holding that despite the lack of a formal proffer, the issue of the propriety of excluding certain evidence was preserved under Rule 103 (a) (2) where the record was “replete with discussions between both parties and the trial court” regarding what the evidence would show), disapproved on other grounds, Philips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 398 (II) n.10 ( 774 …

Thus, Kennison has not shown reversible error.18 Finally, Kennison argues that because her false responses concerned immaterial matters, they were not subject to impeachment, and the impeachment was unduly prejudicial.19 As detailed above, Kennison agreed that plaintiffs’ counsel could ask 17 See Dyals v. Dyals, 281 Ga. 894, 896 (3) ( 644 SE2d 138 ) (2007) (party cannot complain of error induced by his own conduct); Central of Ga. R. v. Ross, 342 Ga. App. 27, 35 (2) (b) ( 80…

See Hand v. South Ga. Urology Center, P.C., 332 Ga. App. 148 ( 769 SE2d 814 ) (2015) (on motion for reconsideration) (requirements of OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) (2) met where the record was “replete with discussions between both parties and the trial court” regarding the content of the evidence).

See Hand, supra (evidence having a tendency to establish facts at issue is relevant and admissible). 11.