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.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘emergency’’ means a situation wherein (1) according to competent medical judgment, the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures are reasonably necessary and (2) a person authorized to consent under Code Section 31-9-2 is not readily available and any delay in treatment could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the life or health of the person
affected or could reasonably result in disfigurement or impaired faculties. (b) In addition to any instances in which a consent is excused or implied at law, a consent to surgical or medical treatment or procedures suggested, recommended, prescribed, or directed by a duly licensed physician will be implied where an emergency exists.
History
Code 1933, § 88-2905, enacted by Ga. L. 1971, p. 438, § 1.
Annotations
Cross references. - Further provi-
sions regarding liability for rendering of emergency care, §§ 31-11-8, 51-1-29.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Winfrey v. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank, 149 Ga. App. 488, 254 S.E.2d 725
(1979); Davis v. Charter By-The-Sea, Inc., 183 Ga. App. 213, 358 S.E.2d 865 (1987).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 59 Am. Jur. 2d, Parent and Child, § 65. 61 Am. Jur. 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers, § 156. C.J.S. - 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 38, 40, 41, 46 et seq. 70 C.J.S., Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Health Care Providers, §§ 103 et seq., 112 et seq. ALR. - Consent as condition of right to perform surgical operation, 76 A.L.R. 562; 139 A.L.R. 1370. Liability of physician or surgeon for extending operation or treatment beyond
that expressly authorized, 56 A.L.R.2d 695. Malpractice: questions of consent in connection with treatment of genital or urinary organs, 89 A.L.R.3d 32. Malpractice in connection with electroshock treatment, 94 A.L.R.3d 317. Power of court or other public agency to order medical treatment over parental religious objections for child whose life is not immediately endangered, 21 A.L.R.5th 248.
Notes of Decisions
Bowden v. the Med. Ctr., Inc., 773 S.E.2d 692 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 4× “n response to Bowden’s argument that the Cox line of cases was inapplicable because she did not sign a consent form for treatment that obligated her to pay the hospital charges, the Court of Appeals said that Bowden’s mother signed such a form on Bowden’s behalf as authorized by…”
Davis v. Charter By-The-Sea, Inc., 358 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “Absent a “grave” emergency under OCGA § 37-7-163, there could still be a question of whether the provisions of OCGA § 31-9-3 were applicable. OCGA § 37-7-163 (d) states that “Except as provided in subsections (b) [not at issue here] and (e) [set out above] of this Code section,…”
Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Bowden, 761 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 31-9-3 (b). In light of our holding, we need not address TMC’s second contention that the ordered discovery would reveal confidential or proprietary information.”
Bowden v. the Med. Ctr., Inc. (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 4× “n response to Bowden’s argument that the Cox line of cases was inapplicable because she did not sign a consent form for treatment that obligated her to pay the hospital charges, the Court of Appeals said that Bowden’s mother signed such a form on Bowden’s behalf as authorized by…”
Simon v. Grady Health Sys., 676 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, the court determined that Simon had impliedly consented to his medical treatment under OCGA § 31-9-3 and that, under OCGA § 37-3-163 (e), Grady is immune from civil or criminal liability.”
The Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Danielle Bowden (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
“See OGCA § 31-9-3 (b). 9 Since the broad range of discovery Bowden requests is not relevant to her claim, the trial court abused its discretion in granting her motion to compel.”
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.