CopyCited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2010 | 287 Ga. 7, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 706
...ngs, is still a general law. McAllister v. American Nat. Red Cross,
240 Ga. 246, 248(2),
240 S.E.2d 247 (1977). In Terrell County v. Albany/Dougherty Hosp. Auth., supra, this Court rejected a claim that the Hospital Care for Pregnant Women Act, OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq., is an unconstitutional special law....
...A §§
31-8-42 and
31-8-43(c), which "involve[] the county's obligation to pay for services extended to its indigent pregnant residents by a hospital in another county." Id. These provisions are part of the Hospital Care for Pregnant Women Act (OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq.), which also includes a provision that requires a showing of gross negligence before a physician, nurse, medical assistant or a hospital or any of its agents or employees can be found civilly liable for malpractice in connection with treatment afforded indigent *82 pregnant women in labor. OCGA §
31-8-44. In its holding, the Terrell County Court stated: "An attack on OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq., as special legislation also fails." Terrell County, 256 Ga....
...112, 113,
84 S.E.2d 198 (1954). In its answer to the Albany/Dougherty Hospital Authority's complaint seeking payment for treatment afforded indigent pregnant Terrell County residents in labor, Terrell County raised two specific attacks on the constitutionality of "OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq." under Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. IV of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 that exclusively addressed the issue of reimbursement obligations. Terrell County then made one general attack on the entire Hospital Care for Pregnant Women Act: "O.C.G.A. Section
31-8-40 et seq....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 28, 1987 | 256 Ga. 627
...y a hospital in another county. Terrell County contests the constitutionality of the statute which requires such payment. The trial court found for the Albany/Dougherty Hospital Authority and we affirm. The Hospital Care for Pregnant Women Act (OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq.) is the target of the constitutional attack....
...The demand for payment by the *628 hospital was refused. The present litigation followed. Summary judgment was granted to the hospital and Terrell County appealed. As outlined by Terrell County, the issues involved in the case are: (1) whether OCGA §
31-8-40 is constitutional; (2) whether there is any genuine issue of material fact; (3) whether the hospital or individuals waived any rights under OCGA §
31-8-40 by the execution, delivery and acceptance of promissory notes; (4) whether there has been an effective payment and release; (5) whether the hospital's claims were properly presented to Terrell County as provided by OCGA §
36-11-1; (6) whether the claims of the hospital were for appropriate emergency services....
...Del-Cook Timber Co.,
248 Ga. 734 (285 SE2d 913) (1982). As long as these regulations promote the general welfare and the purpose of the legislation and are not otherwise unconstitutional, they should be upheld. *630 5. Terrell County contends that OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq., is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. This enumeration of error is without merit. 6. An attack on OCGA §
31-8-40 et seq., as special legislation also fails....