Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gillis v. Goodgamegreen2 sentences2024See Procter, 312 Ga. App. at 488 (1) (reversing dismissal of action on the basis that plaintiff was not required, under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (a), to file an pathologists, or veterinarians); see also Gillis v. Goodgame, 262 Ga. 117, 118 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992) (“the affidavit requirements of [OCGA] § 9-11-9.1 apply only to those professions recognized under Georgia law,” including the predecessor statute to OCGA § 9-11-9.1). 7 expert affidavit in support of negligence claim against a medical defendant whom she characterized as a “technician,” given that “technician” did not fall within any of the ca 2024See Procter, 312 Ga. App. at 488 (1) (reversing dismissal of action on the basis that plaintiff was not required, under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (a), to file an pathologists, or veterinarians); see also Gillis v. Goodgame, 262 Ga. 117, 118 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992) (“the affidavit requirements of [OCGA] § 9-11-9.1 apply only to those professions recognized under Georgia law,” including the predecessor statute to OCGA § 9-11-9.1). 7 expert affidavit in support of negligence claim against a medical defendant whom she characterized as a “technician,” given that “technician” did not fall within any of the ca | 1 | 2 |
Sembler Atlanta Development I, LLC v. URS/Dames & Moore, Inc.green2 sentences2026I v. URS/Dames & Moore, 268 Ga. App. 7, 9 ( 601 SE2d 397 ) (2004) (expert affidavit requirement only applies to claims against professionals enumerated in OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and certain employers where liability is predicated on a professional employee’s malpractice). 2026I v. URS/Dames & Moore, 268 Ga. App. 7, 9 ( 601 SE2d 397 ) (2004) (expert affidavit requirement only applies to claims against professionals enumerated in OCGA § 9-11-9.1 and certain employers where liability is predicated on a professional employee’s malpractice). | 1 | 1 |
Health Management Associates, Inc. v. Bazemoregreen1 sentence2024See Bazemore, 286 Ga. App. at 286 (When a plaintiff files a lawsuit against a licensed health-care facility “based on a claim that the facility is vicariously liable for the professional malpractice of a health care professional licensed by the State of Georgia and listed in [OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (g)], the plaintiff is required to file an expert affidavit with the complaint in accordance with the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (a).”). 10 Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | 1 | 1 |
Procter v. Gwinnett Pulmonary Group & Associates, P.C.green1 sentence2024See Procter, 312 Ga. App. at 488 (1) (reversing dismissal of action on the basis that plaintiff was not required, under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (a), to file an pathologists, or veterinarians); see also Gillis v. Goodgame, 262 Ga. 117, 118 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992) (“the affidavit requirements of [OCGA] § 9-11-9.1 apply only to those professions recognized under Georgia law,” including the predecessor statute to OCGA § 9-11-9.1). 7 expert affidavit in support of negligence claim against a medical defendant whom she characterized as a “technician,” given that “technician” did not fall within any of the ca | 1 | 1 |
Razete v. Preferred Research, Inc.green2 sentences1991See Razete v. Preferred Research, 197 Ga. App. 69, 70 ( 397 SE2d 489 ). 1991See Razete v. Preferred Research, 197 Ga. App. 69, 70 ( 397 SE2d 489 ). | 1 | 1 |
Kneip v. Southern Engineering Co.green2 sentences1990In Central Georgia EMC v. Southern Engineering Co., 260 Ga. 409, 410 ( 395 SE2d 809 ) (1990), we recognized that there are instances in which actions performed by or under the supervision of a professional are nevertheless not professional acts constituting professional malpractice, but, rather, are acts of simple negligence which would not require proof by expert evidence. 1990In Central Georgia EMC v. Southern Engineering Co., 260 Ga. 409, 410 ( 395 SE2d 809 ) (1990), we recognized that there are instances in which actions performed by or under the supervision of a professional are nevertheless not professional acts constituting professional malpractice, but, rather, are acts of simple negligence which would not require proof by expert evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bardo v. Liss
green
1 sentence2007Based on this evidence, the complaint would allege professional negligence because “the degree *288 of physical assistance needed by [Bazemore] to prevent a fall in light of [her] medical condition required the exercise of expert medical judgment.” Bardo, 273 Ga. App. at 105 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Holloway v. Northside Hospital
green
2 sentences2002Holloway v. Northside Hosp., 230 Ga. App. 371 -372 ( 496 SE2d 510 ) (1998). 2002Holloway v. Northside Hosp., 230 Ga. App. 371 -372 ( 496 SE2d 510 ) (1998). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hodge v. Jennings Mill, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1999Iii Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga. App. 413 (3) ( 404 SE2d 815 ) (1991), rev’d on other grounds, 262 Ga. 117 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992), and Hodges v. Jennings Mill, supra, 215 Ga. App. 507 , the Court of Appeals quoted from the definition of “malpractice” found in Webster’s Third International Dictionary: “a dereliction from professional duty whether intentional, criminal, or merely negligent by one rendering professional services that results in injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services or to those entitled to rely upon them or that affects the public interest adversely; the failu | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gillis v. Goodgame
green
2 sentences1999Iii Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga. App. 413 (3) ( 404 SE2d 815 ) (1991), rev’d on other grounds, 262 Ga. 117 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992), and Hodges v. Jennings Mill, supra, 215 Ga. App. 507 , the Court of Appeals quoted from the definition of “malpractice” found in Webster’s Third International Dictionary: “a dereliction from professional duty whether intentional, criminal, or merely negligent by one rendering professional services that results in injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services or to those entitled to rely upon them or that affects the public interest adversely; the failu 1999Iii Gillis v. Goodgame, 199 Ga. App. 413 (3) ( 404 SE2d 815 ) (1991), rev’d on other grounds, 262 Ga. 117 ( 414 SE2d 197 ) (1992), and Hodges v. Jennings Mill, supra, 215 Ga. App. 507 , the Court of Appeals quoted from the definition of “malpractice” found in Webster’s Third International Dictionary: “a dereliction from professional duty whether intentional, criminal, or merely negligent by one rendering professional services that results in injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services or to those entitled to rely upon them or that affects the public interest adversely; the failu | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Lau's Corp., Inc. v. Haskins
green
2 sentences1996Viewing the evidence on S K’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in favor of Lowman under Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474 ) (1991), the evidence was that Lowman worked for a landscaper as a mechanic in charge of servicing equipment. 1996Viewing the evidence on S K’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in favor of Lowman under Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474 ) (1991), the evidence was that Lowman worked for a landscaper as a mechanic in charge of servicing equipment. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lutz v. Foran
green
1 sentence1995In Lutz , the first appellate case applying the expert affidavit requirement to harbor pilots, the Supreme Court concluded that harbor pilots are professionals within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 because they are listed as a profession in OCGA § 14-7-2(2), one of the code sections set forth in Gillis, supra. But the Court decided that, since Gillis, supra, had not been decided when Lutz filed his complaint, it would be unfair to apply the decision to the parties when the plaintiff "did not have the benefit of our decision in Gillis v. Goodgame delineating the professionals against whom an ex | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.