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.
On receipt of notice of the board’s approval, a physician assistant, under the direction of the applying physician, may perform the tasks described in the job description, provided that nothing in this Code section shall make unlawful the performance of a medical task by the
PHYSICIANS, ASSISTANTS, & OTHERS
physician assistant, whether or not such task is specified in the general job description, when it is performed under the direct supervision and in the presence of the physician utilizing him or her.
History
Ga. L. 1972, p. 676, § 6; Ga. L. 2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Determination of medical tasks physician’s assistant eligible to perform. - Because it is a matter strictly for the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners (now Georgia Composite Medical Board) to determine the nature and scope of the medical tasks for which any physician’s assistant (PA) may be qualified to perform, the idea that any other entity can determine whether it is appropriate for a PA to perform any specific type of procedure, whether or not the procedure is contained within the PA’s job description, is contrary to the purposes and intent of O.C.G.A. T. 43, C. 34, A. 4. Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C. v. Gillis, 272 Ga. 404, 528 S.E.2d 785 (2000), reversing
Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C., 239 Ga. App. 350, 520 S.E.2d 767 (1999). Negligence per se. - As it was undisputed that the physician’s assistant who treated and prescribed drugs for the malpractice plaintiff had not been supervised as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 43-34-103(e.1)(1) and 43-34-105, no testimony from a member of the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners (now Georgia Composite Medical Board) was required to show a violation of these statutes, and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff ’s claim of negligence per se. Rockefeller v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 251 Ga. App. 699, 554 S.E.2d 623 (2001).
Notes of Decisions
Rockefeller v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 554 S.E.2d 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “9 The Act, in OCGA § 43-34-105, states that the PA may perform the tasks described in the job description “under the direction of the applying physician.”
Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C. v. Gillis, 528 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. 2000).
· cites it 8× “A PA is limited to those tasks set forth in the job description except when the task “is performed under the direct supervision and in the presence of the physician utilizing [the PA],” OCGA § 43-34-105, “in which case the [PA] may perform any work authorized for physicians that…”
Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs., P.C., 520 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Thus, the only Code section that might authorize Livingston to harvest Gillis' vein is OCGA § 43-34-105, which provides, in pertinent part, that nothing in this Code section shall make unlawful the performance of a medical task by the physician's assistant, whether or not such…”
Cent. Anesthesia Assocs. P. C. v. Worthy, 325 S.E.2d 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, he is to perform only those tasks in his job description plus those performed under the direct supervision and in the presence of the physician utilizing him, OCGA § 43-34-105. So he was not authorized by law to substitute himself for the physician required by OCGA…”
Carole Maso v. Brian Zeh (Ga. 2023).
“§ 43-34-105 (“[A] physician assistant, under the direction of the applying physician, may perform the tasks described in the job de- scription” and additional tasks “performed under the direct supervi- sion and in the presence of the physician utilizing him or her”); id.”
Carole Maso v. Brian Zeh (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
“A PA is limited to those tasks set forth in the job description except when the task is performed under the direct supervision and in the presence of the physician utilizing the PA, OCGA § 43-34-105, in which case the [PA] may perform any work authorized for physicians that the…”
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.