section 9-11-9.1 satisfy the pleading requirements in Georgia

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2017See Washington v. Ga. Baptist Medical Center , 223 Ga. App. 762 , 765 (2), 478 S.E.2d 892 (1996), reversed in part on other grounds by Porquez v. Washington , 268 Ga. 649 , 492 S.E.2d 665 (1997).

2020Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga. App. 286, 287 (1) ( 378 SE2d 708 ) (1989).

1991Assuming, without deciding, that the expert affidavit that was attached to appellant’s complaint was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, it was not otherwise sufficient to satisfy the above-noted evi-dentiary requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56. “[A] malpractice plaintiff as respondent on summary judgment cannot prevail on the motion, where the defendant by the content of his expert affidavit has carried his burden of proof, merely by presenting a conclusory opinion that the defendant was negligent or failed to adhere to professional standards of conduct without stat

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2017See Washington v. Ga. Baptist Medical Center , 223 Ga. App. 762 , 765 (2), 478 S.E.2d 892 (1996), reversed in part on other grounds by Porquez v. Washington , 268 Ga. 649 , 492 S.E.2d 665 (1997).

1997See Robinson v. Starr, 197 Ga. App. 440, 441 (2) ( 398 SE2d 714 ) (1990).

1997See Robinson v. Starr, 197 Ga. App. 440, 441 (2) ( 398 SE2d 714 ) (1990).

2020Moreover, “because OCGA § 9-11-9.1 constitutes an exception to the general liberality of pleading allowed under the Civil Practice Act, it is to be construed in a manner consistent with the liberality of the Act, so long as such a construction does not detract from the [statute’s] purpose, which is to reduce the filing of frivolous malpractice suits.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gala v. Fisher, 296 Ga. 870, 875 ( 770 SE2d 879 ) (2015).

2020Moreover, “because OCGA § 9-11-9.1 constitutes an exception to the general liberality of pleading allowed under the Civil Practice Act, it is to be construed in a manner consistent with the liberality of the Act, so long as such a construction does not detract from the [statute’s] purpose, which is to reduce the filing of frivolous malpractice suits.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gala v. Fisher, 296 Ga. 870, 875 ( 770 SE2d 879 ) (2015).

2020“We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on whether [an expert] affidavit [meets] the pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1.” Graham v. Reynolds, 343 Ga. App. 274, 280 (3) ( 807 SE2d 39 ) (2017).

2020“We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on whether [an expert] affidavit [meets] the pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1.” Graham v. Reynolds, 343 Ga. App. 274, 280 (3) ( 807 SE2d 39 ) (2017).

1994The trial court rejected plaintiffs' proffer of the second affidavit based on Edwards v. Vanstrom, 206 Ga. App. 21, 22 (1) ( 424 SE2d 326 ) (1992), in which we held that a second affidavit which had not been prepared and in plaintiffs' possession prior to the date the first affidavit was filed failed to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1.

1994The trial court rejected plaintiffs' proffer of the second affidavit based on Edwards v. Vanstrom, 206 Ga. App. 21, 22 (1) ( 424 SE2d 326 ) (1992), in which we held that a second affidavit which had not been prepared and in plaintiffs' possession prior to the date the first affidavit was filed failed to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1.

2017See Washington v. Ga. Baptist Medical Center , 223 Ga. App. 762 , 765 (2), 478 S.E.2d 892 (1996), reversed in part on other grounds by Porquez v. Washington , 268 Ga. 649 , 492 S.E.2d 665 (1997).

2017See Washington v. Ga. Baptist Medical Center , 223 Ga. App. 762 , 765 (2), 478 S.E.2d 892 (1996), reversed in part on other grounds by Porquez v. Washington , 268 Ga. 649 , 492 S.E.2d 665 (1997).

2017Thompson v. Ezor , 272 Ga. 849 , 852 (2), 536 S.E.2d 749 (2000) ; Sawyer v. DeKalb Medical Center, 234 Ga. App. 54 , 57 (2), 506 S.E.2d 197 (1998).

2008“In no sense is the pleading requirement of section 9-11-9.1 intended to *482 facilitate the just and efficient resolution of motions for summary judgment.” (Footnote omitted.) Id.

2017Thompson v. Ezor , 272 Ga. 849 , 852 (2), 536 S.E.2d 749 (2000) ; Sawyer v. DeKalb Medical Center, 234 Ga. App. 54 , 57 (2), 506 S.E.2d 197 (1998).

2017Thompson v. Ezor , 272 Ga. 849 , 852 (2), 536 S.E.2d 749 (2000) ; Sawyer v. DeKalb Medical Center, 234 Ga. App. 54 , 57 (2), 506 S.E.2d 197 (1998).

2010Further, the concern about avoiding fraudulent or frivolous lawsuits is already addressed by the strict pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1. *281 See Bowen v. Adams, 203 Ga.App. 123, 124 , 416 S.E.2d 102 (1992) ("The purpose of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 is to reduce the number of frivolous malpractice suits being filed[.]") (citation and punctuation omitted).

2010Further, the concern about avoiding fraudulent or frivolous lawsuits is already addressed by the strict pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1. *281 See Bowen v. Adams, 203 Ga.App. 123, 124 , 416 S.E.2d 102 (1992) ("The purpose of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 is to reduce the number of frivolous malpractice suits being filed[.]") (citation and punctuation omitted).

1996Williams v. Hajosy, 210 Ga. App. 637 (1) ( 436 SE2d 716 ) (1993) (affidavit insufficient to satisfy OCGA § 9-11-56 may still satisfy requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and sufficiency of expert affidavit should be attacked via motion to dismiss, not summary judgment motion).

1996Williams v. Hajosy, 210 Ga. App. 637 (1) ( 436 SE2d 716 ) (1993) (affidavit insufficient to satisfy OCGA § 9-11-56 may still satisfy requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and sufficiency of expert affidavit should be attacked via motion to dismiss, not summary judgment motion).

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2020Here, the only portion of the motion to dismiss that could be deemed relevant to a challenge to the nurse’s qualifications is the statement that Cantrell failed to file an affidavit that met the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and OCGA § 24-7-702.2 2 OCGA § 24-7-702 sets out the standard for admitting an expert opinion in professional malpractice actions, including licensing, knowledge and experience, and 4 The mere mention of the relevant statutes, without any description of the alleged deficiency, is not sufficient to identify an inadequacy in an expert affidavit “with specificity.” See Tene

2020Here, the only portion of the motion to dismiss that could be deemed relevant to a challenge to the nurse’s qualifications is the statement that Cantrell failed to file an affidavit that met the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and OCGA § 24-7-702.2 2 OCGA § 24-7-702 sets out the standard for admitting an expert opinion in professional malpractice actions, including licensing, knowledge and experience, and 4 The mere mention of the relevant statutes, without any description of the alleged deficiency, is not sufficient to identify an inadequacy in an expert affidavit “with specificity.” See Tene

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2020See Porquez v. Washington, 268 Ga. 649, 650 (1) ( 492 SE2d 665 ) (1997) (expert affidavit set forth at least one factually-based act of negligence by stating that defendants failed to properly monitor the use of an emergency medical device); see also Vitner v. Miller, 223 Ga. App. 692, 693 (2) ( 479 SE2d 1 ) (1996) (affidavit stating that doctor’s failure to complete two suction abortions constituted negligence was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of OCGA § 9-11-9.1); Crook v. Funk, 214 Ga. App. 213, 214 (1) ( 447 SE2d 60 ) (1994) (affidavit sufficient where it alleged that agent

2020See Howard v. City of Columbus, 219 Ga. App. 569, 574-575 (3) (a), (c) ( 466 SE2d 51 ) (1995) (physical precedent only) (expert’s general identification of defendants as “jail clinic departmental personnel and staff” sufficient to satisfy pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1; no requirement that affidavit make specific reference to particular defendant so long as it links alleged malpractice to defendants).5 Although it is possible that the discovery process will dispel liability on 5 We also note that AU Medical’s counsel conceded at oral argument before this Court that Cantrell was not r

2020See Howard v. City of Columbus, 219 Ga. App. 569, 574-575 (3) (a), (c) ( 466 SE2d 51 ) (1995) (physical precedent only) (expert’s general identification of defendants as “jail clinic departmental personnel and staff” sufficient to satisfy pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1; no requirement that affidavit make specific reference to particular defendant so long as it links alleged malpractice to defendants).5 Although it is possible that the discovery process will dispel liability on 5 We also note that AU Medical’s counsel conceded at oral argument before this Court that Cantrell was not r

2020And in conducting that review, we view “all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true.” Hobbs v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Ga., 337 Ga. App. 248, 248 ( 786 SE2d 897 ) (2016).

2020And in conducting that review, we view “all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true.” Hobbs v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Ga., 337 Ga. App. 248, 248 ( 786 SE2d 897 ) (2016).

2020Joseph’s/Candler Health System, 341 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 800 SE2d 395 ) (2017) (affidavit insufficient because it recites only generally that the nurses and staff at the hospital failed to appropriately treat, assess, and advocate for patient and does not contain any specific instances of any of those alleged failures); Edwards v. Vanstrom, 206 Ga. App. 21, 22 (1) ( 424 SE2d 326 ) (1992) (expert affidavit fatally defective where it merely stated that the defendants did not follow the procedures expected of 11 a licensed dentist and did not state specifically a negligent act or omission).

2020Joseph’s/Candler Health System, 341 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 800 SE2d 395 ) (2017) (affidavit insufficient because it recites only generally that the nurses and staff at the hospital failed to appropriately treat, assess, and advocate for patient and does not contain any specific instances of any of those alleged failures); Edwards v. Vanstrom, 206 Ga. App. 21, 22 (1) ( 424 SE2d 326 ) (1992) (expert affidavit fatally defective where it merely stated that the defendants did not follow the procedures expected of 11 a licensed dentist and did not state specifically a negligent act or omission).

2017Ziglar argues, however, that his complaint also set out a claim for simple negligence acts by the nonprofessional Hospital support staff for which he did not need an OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affidavit. 1 Carter v. VistaCare, LLC, 335 Ga. App. 616, 621 (3) ( 782 SE2d 678 ) (2016) (requirement of attaching an OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affidavit does not apply to claims of ordinary negligence); Padgett v. Baxley and Appling County Hosp.

2017Ziglar argues, however, that his complaint also set out a claim for simple negligence acts by the nonprofessional Hospital support staff for which he did not need an OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affidavit. 1 Carter v. VistaCare, LLC, 335 Ga. App. 616, 621 (3) ( 782 SE2d 678 ) (2016) (requirement of attaching an OCGA § 9-11-9.1 affidavit does not apply to claims of ordinary negligence); Padgett v. Baxley and Appling County Hosp.

1997Additionally, our decision in Thompson v. Long, 201 Ga.App. 480, 481 (1), 411 S.E.2d 322 (1991), permitted amendment to the body of the complaint in order to allow for the pleading of the provisions of OCGA § 9-11-9.1(b).

1997Additionally, our decision in Thompson v. Long, 201 Ga.App. 480, 481 (1), 411 S.E.2d 322 (1991), permitted amendment to the body of the complaint in order to allow for the pleading of the provisions of OCGA § 9-11-9.1(b).

1996However, “[a]n affidavit which satisfies the pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 will not necessarily satisfy the evidentiary requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56. [Cit.]” Hailey v. Blalock, 209 Ga. App. 345, 346 (1) ( 433 SE2d 337 ) (1993).

1996However, “[a]n affidavit which satisfies the pleading requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 will not necessarily satisfy the evidentiary requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56. [Cit.]” Hailey v. Blalock, 209 Ga. App. 345, 346 (1) ( 433 SE2d 337 ) (1993).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).

1996“To be sufficient to controvert the defendant’s expert opinion and create an issue of fact, the plaintiff’s expert must base his opinion on medical records which are sworn or certified copies, or upon his own personal knowledge; and he must *766 state ‘the particulars in which the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff was negligent.’ [Cits.]” (Emphasis in original.) Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. App. 253, 255 (1) ( 355 SE2d 448 ) (1987).

1996“To be sufficient to controvert the defendant’s expert opinion and create an issue of fact, the plaintiff’s expert must base his opinion on medical records which are sworn or certified copies, or upon his own personal knowledge; and he must *766 state ‘the particulars in which the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff was negligent.’ [Cits.]” (Emphasis in original.) Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. App. 253, 255 (1) ( 355 SE2d 448 ) (1987).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).

1996While a facsimile affidavit can satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, see Sisk v. Patel, 217 Ga. App. 156, 158 ( 456 SE2d 718 ) (1995), “[i]n the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force, no validity, amounts to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harvey v. Kidney Center of Central Ga., 213 Ga. App. 319, 320 ( 444 SE2d 590 ) (1994); Hill-Everett v. Jones, 197 Ga. App. 872, 873 (1) ( 399 SE2d 739 ) (1990).