Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 31-7-3.2 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 31-7-3.2 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 31-7-3.2

TITLE 31 HEALTH

Section 7. Regulation and Construction of Hospitals and Other Health Care Facilities, 31-7-1 through 31-7-412.

ARTICLE 1 REGULATION OF HOSPITALS AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS

31-7-3.2. Notice of cited deficiency and imposition of sanction.

  1. A nursing home or intermediate care home licensed under this article shall give notice in the event that such facility has been cited by the department for any deficiency for which the facility has received notice of the imposition of any sanction available under federal or state laws or regulations, except where a plan of correction is the only sanction to be imposed.
  2. A notice required under subsection (a) of this Code section shall be of a size and format prescribed by the department and shall contain the following:
    1. A list of each cited deficiency which has resulted in the notice being required;
    2. A description of any actions taken by or of any notices of intent to take action issued by federal or state entities as a result of such cited deficiencies;
    3. The telephone numbers of the state and community long-term care ombudsman programs; and
    4. A statement that a copy of the notice may be obtained upon written request accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope.
  3. A notice required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be posted at the facility giving the notice:
    1. In an area readily accessible and continuously visible to the facility's residents and their representatives;
    2. Within 14 days after the facility receives notification of imposition of a sanction for a cited deficiency which requires the notice; and
    3. Until the department has determined such cited deficiencies no longer exist, at which time the notice may be removed.
  4. In addition to the posted notice required by subsection (c) of this Code section, a notice, containing the information set forth in subsection (b) of this Code section, shall also be provided by the facility upon written request.The facility shall be responsible for mailing a copy of such notice when the written request is accompanied by a postage paid self-addressed envelope.
  5. Each applicant to a facility shall receive upon written request with his application a copy of the most recent notice which has been distributed pursuant to this subsection.The facility may inform the applicant of any corrective actions taken in response to the cited deficiencies contained in such notice.
  6. In the event that the facility previously has been required to have posted or provided notice of the same cited deficiency arising from the same act, occurrence, or omission, this Code section should not be construed to require the facility to post or provide duplicate notice of such cited deficiency so long as the notice is made in a manner consistent with subsections (b) and (c) of this Code section.
  7. In the case of a violation of this Code section, the department may impose administrative sanctions as otherwise provided by law in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act."
  8. The department may promulgate rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Code section.
  9. No violation of any regulation promulgated pursuant to the federal Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396r and 1395i-3, or any regulation included in Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 111-8-50 or 111-8-56 or the successor of such regulations as they existed on May 12, 2015, shall constitute negligence per se; provided, however, that the court in any civil action shall take judicial notice of these regulations and admit them into evidence if found to be relevant to the harm alleged in the complaint. Nothing in this subsection shall abrogate any express cause of action authorized under law or be construed to amend or repeal any provision of the "Bill of Rights for Residents of Long-term Care Facilities" in Article 5 of Chapter 8 of this title.
    1. The results or findings of a federal or state survey or inspection of a nursing home facility, including any statement of deficiencies or reports, shall not be used or referenced in an advertisement or solicitation by any person or any entity, unless the advertisement or solicitation includes all of the following:
      1. The date the survey was conducted;
      2. A statement that the Department of Community Health conducts a survey of all nursing home facilities at least once every 15 months;
      3. If a finding or deficiency cited in the statement of deficiencies has been substantially corrected, a statement that the finding or deficiency has been substantially corrected and the date that the finding or deficiency was substantially corrected;
      4. The number of findings and deficiencies cited in the statement of deficiencies on the basis of the survey and a disclosure of the severity level for each finding and deficiency;
      5. The average number of findings and deficiencies cited in statements of deficiencies on the basis of surveys conducted by the department during the same calendar year as the survey used in the advertisement;
      6. A disclosure of whether each finding or deficiency caused actual bodily harm to any residents and the number of residents harmed thereby; and
      7. A statement that the advertisement is neither authorized nor endorsed by any government agency.
    2. In addition to any other remedies and damages allowed by law, a party found to have violated paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be liable for attorney fees and expenses of litigation incurred in an action to restrain or enjoin such violation; provided, however, that damages, attorney fees, and expenses of litigation shall not be recoverable against any newspaper, news outlet, or broadcaster publishing an advertisement or solicitation submitted by a third party for a fee.

(Code 1981, §31-7-3.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1603, § 2; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1315, § 1/HB 342; Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 31/HB 737.)

The 2015 amendment, effective May 12, 2015, added subsections (i) and (j). See Editor's notes for applicability.

The 2016 amendment, effective May 3, 2016, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "this title" for "Title 31" at the end of subsection (i).

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2015, "May 12, 2015" was substituted for "the effective date of this subsection" in subsection (i).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2015, p. 1315, § 2/HB 342, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval and shall apply to all causes of actions arising on and after such date."

Law reviews.

- For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 257 (2015). For note on 1991 enactment of this Code section, see 8 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 74 (1992).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 31-7-3.2

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Wilkes & Mchugh, P.A. v. LTC Consulting, L.P., 830 S.E.2d 119 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2019 | 306 Ga. 252

...We vacate the trial court's denial of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion at issue in this case, and we remand the case with direction to reconsider the motion under the proper standards. LTC Consulting, L.P. and two affiliated entities sued law firm Wilkes & McHugh, *121P.A. and one of its attorneys for violations of OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), deceptive trade practices, and false advertising after the defendants ran full-page advertisements in local newspapers targeting patients of nursing homes owned by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Strike Pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-11.1 and 9-11-12 (b) (6), arguing among other things that OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), which was enacted in 2015, violates the First Amendment....
...is responsible for the content of this advertisement ."4 (b) The Trial Court Proceedings On October 19, 2017, the owner of Powder Springs filed a Verified Complaint for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief against the defendants, alleging that the ads violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2 's recently enacted subsection (j), which imposes limitations on advertisements that use or reference the results of federal or state surveys or inspections of nursing homes....
...d Rockdale Healthcare in addition to the ad concerning Powder Springs. The plaintiffs alleged that 91% of nursing homes surveyed are found to have "deficiencies" and that the defendants did not include in the ads all the information required by OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j)....
...misleading advertisements concerning the Plaintiffs"; "the advertisements included as Exhibits A, B, and C to Plaintiffs' [First] Amended Complaint"; and "any advertisements concerning the Plaintiffs that do not fully comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-3.2 (j)." The expanded TRO was to remain in effect for 30 days or until November 10, 2017, when the court would hold a consolidated hearing on the plaintiffs' requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On the day befo...
...Dismiss or to Strike Pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-11.1 and 9-11-12 (b) (6), attaching as exhibits printouts from the Medicare.gov website concerning the surveys that the defendants cited in their ads. The defendants argued among other things that OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j) violates the First Amendment and, in any event, that the ads substantially complied with the statute....
...The defendants then filed a timely notice of appeal directed to the Court of Appeals. (c) The Appeal After briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeals on August 27, 2018, properly transferred the case to this Court based on the plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge to OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), which **257the trial court implicitly rejected in denying the defendants' motion.6 On October 2, 2018, the plaintiffs *124filed a motion to return the case to the Court of Appeals, which this Court denied on October 22, 2018. The parties then filed supplemental briefs addressing certain First Amendment issues, but only as to OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j)....
...See Navellier , 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d at 709. OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (c) (4) refers to "[a]ny other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public concern." The plaintiffs' claims that the defendants violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the false advertising statutes are all based on the defendants' running of ads in local newspapers informing the public of the defendants' availability to provide legal services related...
...The second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis requires a determination of whether the party or parties opposing the anti-SLAPP motion - here, the plaintiffs - have established that there is a probability that they will prevail on their claims that the defendants violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), the UDTPA, and the false advertising statutes....
...itation and punctuation omitted)). Moreover, neither the trial court nor the parties have addressed certain important preliminary questions. The first such question is whether the statutes cited in the complaint apply here at all. For example, OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j) appears in Article 1 of Chapter 7 of Title 31 of the Georgia Code, which establishes Georgia's regulatory framework for hospitals and related institutions, including nursing homes, which seems an unlikely place to find a statute regulating attorney advertising....
Copy

Wilkes & Mchugh P.A. v. Ltc Consulting, L.P., 306 Ga. 252 (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2019

...motion at issue in this case, and we remand the case with direction to reconsider the motion under the proper standards. LTC Consulting, L.P. and two affiliated entities sued law firm Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. and one of its attorneys for violations of OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), deceptive trade practices, and false advertising after the defendants ran full-page advertisements in local newspapers targeting patients of nursing homes owned by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Strike Pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-11.1 and 9-11-12 (b) (6), arguing among other things that OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), which was enacted in 2015, violates the First Amendment....
...Any advertisement shall include the name, physical location and telephone number of each lawyer or law firm who paid for the advertisement and who takes full personal responsibility for the advertisement. . . .”). defendants, alleging that the ads violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2’s recently enacted subsection (j), which imposes limitations on advertisements that use or reference the results of federal or state surveys or inspections of nursing homes....
...le Healthcare in addition to the ad concerning Powder Springs. The plaintiffs alleged that 91% of nursing homes surveyed are found to have “deficiencies” and that the defendants did not include in the ads all the information required by OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j)....
...ertisements concerning the Plaintiffs”; “the advertisements included as Exhibits A, B, and C to Plaintiffs’ [First] Amended Complaint”; and “any advertisements concerning the Plaintiffs that do not fully comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-3.2 (j).” The expanded TRO was to remain in effect for 30 days or until November 10, 2017, when the court would hold a consolidated hearing on the plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On...
...a Motion to Dismiss or to Strike Pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-11.1 and 9-11-12 (b) (6), attaching as exhibits printouts from the Medicare.gov website concerning the surveys that the defendants cited in their ads. The defendants argued among other things that OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j) violates the First Amendment and, in any event, that the ads substantially complied with the statute....
...The defendants then filed a timely notice of appeal directed to the Court of Appeals. (c) The Appeal After briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeals on August 27, 2018, properly transferred the case to this Court based on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), which the trial court implicitly rejected in denying the defendants’ motion.6 On October 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to return the case to the Court of Appeals, which this Court denied on October 22, 2018. The parties then filed supplemental briefs addressing certain First Amendment issues, but only as to OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j). The case was orally argued in this Court on January 22, 2019. 6 See Ga....
...See Navellier, 52 P3d at 709. OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (c) (4) refers to “[a]ny other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public concern.” The plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), and the false advertising statutes are all based on the defendants’ running of ads in local newspapers informing the public of the defendants’ availability to provide le...
...The second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis requires a determination of whether the party or parties opposing the anti- SLAPP motion — here, the plaintiffs — have established that there is a probability that they will prevail on their claims that the defendants violated OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j), the UDTPA, and the false advertising statutes....
...(citation and punctuation omitted)). Moreover, neither the trial court nor the parties have addressed certain important preliminary questions. The first such question is whether the statutes cited in the complaint apply here at all. For example, OCGA § 31-7-3.2 (j) appears in Article 1 of Chapter 7 of Title 31 of the Georgia Code, which establishes Georgia’s regulatory framework for hospitals and related institutions, including nursing homes, which seems an unlikely place to find a statute regulating attorney advertising....