Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §31-32-10, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 133, § 2/HB 24.)
- For note, "An Advance Directive: The Elective, Effective Way to Be Protective of Your Rights," 68 Mercer L. Rev. 521 (2017).
- Trial court properly denied summary judgment to the medical defendants on the immunity question under the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act, O.C.G.A. § 31-32-10(a)(2), because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants made a good faith effort to rely on the directions and decisions of the patient's health care agent under the Advance Directive in carrying out the March 7 intubation. Doctors Hosp. of Augusta, LLC v. Alicea, 332 Ga. App. 529, 774 S.E.2d 114 (2015), aff'd, 299 Ga. 315, 788 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. 2016).
- When the health care provider makes the patient's health care decisions based on the provider's own judgment, without relying in good faith on what the patient's designated health care agent directed, the provider must defend those actions without the immunity given in O.C.G.A. § 31-32-10(a). Doctors Hospital of Augusta, LLC v. Alicea, 299 Ga. 315, 788 S.E.2d 392 (2016).
After the designated health care agent sued a hospital and a doctor for intubating and putting the agent's grandmother on a mechanical ventilator, contrary to the grandmother's advance directive for health care, the trial court properly rejected the doctor's immunity argument under the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act, O.C.G.A. § 31-32-1 et seq., and properly denied summary judgment on that ground because there was a clear factual dispute about whether the doctor relied at all on any directive from the agent in acting to order the intubation; and there was apparently undisputed evidence that the doctor did not tell the agent that the doctor was unwilling to comply with the agent's decision, or promptly inform the agent of the doctor's decision. Doctors Hospital of Augusta, LLC v. Alicea, 299 Ga. 315, 788 S.E.2d 392 (2016).
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-07-05
Citation: 299 Ga. 315, 788 S.E.2d 392, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 448
Snippet: judgment, arguing among other things that OCGA § 31-32-10 (a) (2) and (3), a part of the Georgia Advance
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-03-11
Citation: 468 S.E.2d 23, 266 Ga. 374, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 966, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 102
Snippet: would violate the criminal provisions of OCGA § 31-32-10 and OCGA § 31-36-9(2), subjecting the Shumates