Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §24-8-826, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
- Hearing before administrative law judge, § 34-9-102.
- For article, "Dancing with the Big Boys: Georgia Adopts (most of) the Federal Rules of Evidence," see 63 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2011).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- Trial court did not err in admitting the podiatrist's medical records on the patient into evidence in the patient's medical malpractice case. Kohl v. Tirado, 256 Ga. App. 681, 569 S.E.2d 576 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a premises liability suit, the trial court properly excluded certified copies of some of an invitee's medical records under former O.C.G.A. § 24-7-8 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-9-902) because the invitee had not provided the requisite 60-day notice under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18. Former O.C.G.A. § 24-7-8 concerned only the authentication of medical records and did not allow the invitee to circumvent other evidentiary rules; furthermore, the invitee failed to provide a record citation for the specific medical records that the invitee claimed should have been admitted and thus it was unclear whether those records were narratives, to which former § 24-3-18(a) applied, or other types of records. Fuller v. Flash Foods, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 217, 679 S.E.2d 775 (2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a wrongful death suit brought by a minor child's parents, alleging negligence and police misconduct arising out of an incident in which emergency surgery on their child was delayed due to police detention of the doctor who was to perform the surgery, summary judgment was improperly granted; the medical narrative report prepared by the doctor was admissible evidence under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a) and could be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(c), in that the doctor's opinion in the report that the son, "in all likelihood," would have survived had the doctor not been prevented from caring for the son constituted a properly expressed medical opinion. Dalton v. City of Marietta, 280 Ga. App. 202, 633 S.E.2d 552 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a personal injury suit, it was error to admit a neurologist's notes under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a), as the notes were replete with unexplained medical terms and test results and thus did not comprise a medical narrative "in story form" as contemplated by the former statute; the error was not harmless, as the notes constituted the vast majority of appellees' medical evidence and for the most part were not cumulative of other testimony. Lott v. Ridley, 285 Ga. App. 513, 647 S.E.2d 292 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- Daughter failed to carry the daughter's burden of showing a genuine issue of fact as to her parent's testamentary capacity or undue influence at the time the parent signed a will excluding her as a beneficiary although the parent became ill and died soon after executing the will. A neurologist report was not admissible under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a) because the report was not in narrative form and relied on unexplained medical terms and lab results. Prine v. Blanton, 290 Ga. 307, 720 S.E.2d 600 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- Trial court did not err in refusing to permit the manufacturer's two expert witnesses to testify to asbestos fiber counts on the manufacturer's packing in decedent's case against the manufacturer for decedent's exposure to asbestos that allegedly was in the manufacturer's packing material used in the plant where decedent worked as that testimony was inadmissible hearsay since neither of the expert witnesses were involved in preparing those counts; absent a witness from the laboratory that performed the counts of a report that complied with former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a), such testimony was inadmissible. John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 262 Ga. App. 531, 586 S.E.2d 26 (2003) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a personal injury suit, it was proper to admit a chiropractor's report under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a); as the report was in a narrative form, summarized a patient's injuries and treatment, and presented the relevant aspects of the patient's injury, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in a logical form; although it contained medical terms, it attempted to explain those terms in the context of the report. Lott v. Ridley, 285 Ga. App. 513, 647 S.E.2d 292 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a personal injury suit, a bare recitation of a doctor's unedited records was not a medical narrative in story form, as contemplated by former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18(a); therefore, a trial court committed reversible error by allowing plaintiffs' counsel to merely read into the record the doctor's notes, with no attempt to organize the doctor's notes or structure the notes to make the notes more readily understandable to the jury. Lott v. Ridley, 285 Ga. App. 513, 647 S.E.2d 292 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
- In a probate action, an oncologist's opinion, when considered along with other evidence of a testator's mental impairment and weakness after being prescribed drugs, was relevant in determining the amount of influence necessary to dominate the testator's mind and destroy free agency and willpower. Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528, 630 S.E.2d 396 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18).
No results found for Georgia Code 24-8-826.