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 article, the term:
(1) ‘‘Alzheimer’s disease’’ or ‘‘Alzheimer’s related dementia’’ means a progressive, degenerative disease or condition that attacks the brain and results in impaired memory, thinking, and behavior.
(2) ‘‘Care,’’ ‘‘treatment,’’ and ‘‘therapeutic activities’’ shall not include the sole activity of marketing, selling, manufacturing, or dispensing medication which is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and prescribed by a person licensed to practice medicine in accordance with Chapter 34 of Title 43 and informational or support services related to the use of such medication.
(3) ‘‘Department’’ means the Department of Community Health.
History
Code 1981, § 31-8-180, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 841, § 1; Ga. L. 2011, p. 705, § 4-14/HB 214.
Annotations
Cross references. - Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias State Plan, T. 49, C. 6, Art. 8.
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant
to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1995, a hyphen was deleted between ‘‘Alzheimer’s’’ and ‘‘related’’ in paragraph (1).
Law reviews. - For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 147 (2011).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1998–2011 · leading case:
Smith v. State, 717 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Smith v. State, 717 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “[[Image here]] (6) “Disabled adult” means a person 18 years of age or older who is not a resident of a long-term care facility, as defined in Article 4 of Chapter 8 of Title 31, but who is mentally or physically incapacitated or has Alzheimer’s disease, as defined in Code…”
Peacock v. HCP III Eastman, Inc., 497 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Based upon the court’s error in refusing to enforce Peacock’s notice to produce at trial, we reverse. 1. In his first enumeration, Peacock claims that the trial court erred in refusing to enforce a notice to produce at trial which included a request for all incident reports from…”
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.