O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
As used in this chapter, the term: (1) ‘‘Accredited hospital’’ means a hospital licensed by the Department of Community Health and accredited by a nationally recognized health care accreditation body. (2) ‘‘Physician’’ means a person duly licensed to practice medicine and surgery without restriction in Georgia pursuant to Chapter 34 of Title 43. (3) ‘‘Sterilization procedure’’ means any procedure which is designed or intended to prevent conception and which is not designed to unsex the patient by removing the ovaries or testicles.
History
Ga. L. 1966, p. 453, § 3; Ga. L. 1970, p. 683, § 4; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3,
§ 31; Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 2-30/SB 433; Ga. L. 2012, p. 337, § 7/SB 361.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Procedure not designed to prevent conception not within ambit of law. - If surgical procedure involved was not designed or intended to prevent concep-
tion, it was not a surgical procedure within regulatory ambit of Ga. L. 1966, p. 453. Winfrey v. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank, 149 Ga. App. 488, 254 S.E.2d 725 (1979).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 61 Am. Jur. 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers, § 262.
C.J.S. - 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 72.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1986–1996 · leading case:
Gowen v. Cady, 376 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
Gowen v. Cady, 376 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The threshold issue to the Cadys’ remaining claims against Gowen is whether they are barred by OCGA § 31-20-5 of the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act, OCGA § 31-20-1 et seq. As discussed by this court in Dohn v.”
Dohn v. Lovell, 370 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “76337, in order to address questions arising under the construction of the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act, OCGA § 31-20-1 et seq. Both appeals are consolidated in this opinion.”
Ariemma v. Perlow, 477 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act, OCGA §§ 31-20-1 to 31-20-6, was enacted in 1966 to limit the liability of qualified physicians who perform sterilization procedures.”
Cummings v. Dudley, 349 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “683-688 (OCGA § 31-20-1 et seq.), which provides that “[w]hen an operation shall have been performed in compliance with this chapter, no physician duly licensed without restriction to practice medicine and surgery in this state .”
Kaplan v. Blank, 419 S.E.2d 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “] The ‘existing law’ is found in the language of the Voluntary Sterilization Act[, OCGA § 31-20-1 et seq.]. . . .” Robinson v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.