O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 43-34-101 (2019)

Legislative purpose

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) To alleviate the growing shortage and geographic maldistribution of health care services in this state, the General Assembly intends, by this article, to recognize physician assistants and their role in addressing this growing health care shortage.

(b) This article is intended to encourage the more effective utilization of the skills of physicians by enabling them to delegate health care tasks to such assistants where such delegation is consistent with the patient’s health and welfare.

History

Ga. L. 1972, p. 676, § 2; Ga. L. 2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C. v. Gillis, 272 Ga. 404, 528 S.E.2d 785 (2000).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Howard v. City of Columbus, 521 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard v. City of Columbus, 521 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Adams, supra, is good law but inapplicable to the facts of this case, because such case was based upon a failure to diagnose by the physician's assistant-nurse, a discretionary act, and physician's assistants under OCGA § 43-34-101 et seq. have broad discretion to carry out…”
Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C., 520 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “” OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). However, there are limits to a doctor’s ability to delegate to a physician’s assistant.”
Brown v. Belinfante, 557 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “6 OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). 7 OCGA § 43-11-7. 8 See OCGA § 43-11-1 et seq.”
Rockefeller v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 554 S.E.2d 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “5 OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). 6 OCGA § 43-34-103 (a).”
Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C. v. Gillis, 528 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). Under this Act, a physician’s assistant (“PA”) may be licensed to perform patients’ services for which the PA has been found qualified to perform by academic and practical training.”
Carole Maso v. Brian Zeh, 317 Ga. 769 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 43-34-101 (a).4 So I agree with the Court’s decision not to grant further review of this case, but I am open to reviewing these important questions about vicarious liability in an appropriate case.”
Carole Maso v. Brian Zeh (Ga. 2023). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 43-34-101 (a).4 So I agree with the Court’s 3 Further complicating our review of this question, it appears that the physician sued in this case is not the “primary supervising physician” of the physician assistant here.”
Carole Maso v. Brian Zeh (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). Under this Act, a [PA] may be licensed to perform patients’ services for which the PA has been found qualified to perform by academic and practical 3 training.”
— 43-34-101(b) — 1 case
Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C., 520 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). “” OCGA § 43-34-101 (b). However, there are limits to a doctor’s ability to delegate to a physician’s assistant.”
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.