O.C.G.A. § 24-8-826 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Hearing before administrative law judge, § 34-9-102.

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2023, p. 374, § 2/SB 134 purported to add two new subsections but actually set out the entire Code section. Law reviews. For article, “Dancing with the Big Boys: Georgia Adopts (most of) the Federal Rules of Evidence,” see 63 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - 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. Admission of records in medical malpractice action. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 942 (2002), cert. denied, No. S02C1826, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 880 (Ga. Sept. 30, 2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Records properly excluded when 60-day notice requirement not met. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 632 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1670, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 549 (Ga. Sept. 8, 2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Admissibility on summary judgment. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 689 (2006), cert. denied, No. S06C1926, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 957 (Ga. Nov. 6, 2006), cert. denied, No. S06C1925, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 958 (Ga. Nov. 6, 2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Neurologist’s notes improperly admitted. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Neurologist report inadmissible in undue influence case. - 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 Ga. LEXIS 8 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-318). Report prepared by others inadmissible. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 852 (2003), aff’d, 278 Ga. 747, 604 S.E.2d 822, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 996 (2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Chiropractor’s report properly admitted. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Recitation of records was not a narrative. - 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. § 243-18(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 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18). Medical narrative in undue influence claim. - 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 Ga. LEXIS 355 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-318). Medical narrative in personal injury admissible. - In a personal injury action, the trial court abused the court’s discretion in sustaining the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s treating physician’s medical narrative because the physician’s discussion of future treatment was not too speculative, inconclusive, or vague, the physician’s opinion that the plaintiff was not a malingerer was part of the physician’s diagnosis, and the physician properly expressed an opinion on causation. The trial court misapplied the relevant law as the contested statements were made after the physician had examined the plaintiff and were admissible as the physician’s interpretation of that examination. Owensby v. Williams, 355 Ga. App. 695, 843 S.E.2d 899, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 (2020). Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in overruling defendants’ objections to the admission of the physician’s medical narrative report pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-8-826 because the fact that it contradicted the physician’s deposition testimony went to the physician’s credibility, which would be assessed by the jury, not the report’s admissibility. Edwards v. Roundtree, 365 Ga. App. 812, 880 S.E.2d 298, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 500 (2022).

This section did not restrict the basis upon which a physician could rely in forming medical opinions to his own personal knowledge of facts acquired while treating the patient, and therefore the fact that the physician relied on information he obtained from medical records and deposi-

tion testimony rather than solely on his own personal knowledge acquired from treating plaintiff did not render his report inadmissible. Edwards v. Roundtree, 365 Ga. App. 812, 880 S.E.2d 298, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 500 (2022).

CHAPTER 9 AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION Sec.

Article 1 General Provisions Sec.

Requirement of authentication or identification. Self-authentication. Subscribing witness’s testimony. Definitions.

Article 2 Specific Types of Records and Evidence

Authentication of Georgia state and county records. Identification of medical

Law reviews. For article, “Evidence,” see 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2011).

bills; expert witness unnecessary. Proof of laws, records, nonjudicial records, or books of other states, territories, or possessions; full faith and credit. Admissibility of photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, and audio recordings when witness unavailable. Admissibility of records of Department of Driver Services; admissibility of computer transmitted records.

For annual survey on evidence, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 1021 (2020).

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Law reviews. For article on the 2011 enactment of

this article, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).