Sterilization operation.

- Since O.C.G.A. § 31-20-5 bars claims based on contract and all other claims, civil or criminal, except one based on the negligent performance of the sterilization operation, when it is uncontroverted that there was no negligence in the performance of the sterilization operation and that the sterilization procedure was performed in full compliance with O.C.G.A. Ch. 20, T. 31, the patient's claim, whether based on contract or some other negligence, fell within the scope of O.C.G.A. § 31-20-5, and the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the physician. Cummings v. Dudley, 180 Ga. App. 545, 349 S.E.2d 543 (1986).

Written consent to the performance of a possible hysterectomy was not sufficient consent for the performance of a bilateral tubal ligation after obtaining only oral consent thereto. A tubal ligation is a "sterilization procedure" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 31-20-1(3) and written consent was required when the only purpose served by the performance of the procedure was to prevent a future pregnancy and it served no sound therapeutic purpose which was of any immediate benefit to the patient's non-reproductive health. Kaplan v. Blank, 204 Ga. App. 378, 419 S.E.2d 127 (1992).

Purpose of every sterilization procedure is the prevention of a future pregnancy and to hold that such a purpose, standing alone, constitutes a "sound therapeutic purpose" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 31-20-5 would effectively negate O.C.G.A. Ch. 20, T. 31. Kaplan v. Blank, 204 Ga. App. 378, 419 S.E.2d 127 (1992).

Operation without consent constitutes technical battery.

- Operation performed without the consent of the patient constitutes a technical battery for which a physician may be held liable. Gowen v. Carpenter, 189 Ga. App. 477, 376 S.E.2d 384 (1988).

Showing of negligence required.

- Since the physician complied with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 31-20-2, and the patient did not claim that the physician was negligent in performing the vasectomy procedure, claims for negligence, fraud, battery, violations of the Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and loss of consortium were barred. Ariemma v. Perlow, 223 Ga. App. 360, 477 S.E.2d 590 (1996).

Limitation of actions.

- Statute of limitations for battery resulting from an unauthorized operation is the two-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person and the four-year statute of limitations for loss of consortium. Gowen v. Carpenter, 189 Ga. App. 477, 376 S.E.2d 384 (1988); Gowen v. Cady, 189 Ga. App. 473, 376 S.E.2d 390, cert. denied, 189 Ga. App. 912, 376 S.E.2d 390 (1988).

C.J.S.

- 70 C.J.S., Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Health Care Providers, § 160.

ALR.

- Physicians and surgeons: res ipsa loquitur, or presumption or inference of negligence, in malpractice cases, 82 A.L.R.2d 1262.

Malpractice in appendicitis treatment and surgery, 94 A.L.R.2d 1006.

Physician's or surgeon's malpractice in connection with diagnosis or treatment of rectal or anal disease, 5 A.L.R.3d 916.

Legality of voluntary nontherapeutic sterilization, 35 A.L.R.3d 1444.