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) Physicians and surgeons licensed to practice medicine in accordance with and under this article shall be the only persons authorized to administer or perform artificial insemination upon any female human being. Any other person or persons who shall attempt to administer or perform or who shall actually administer or perform artificial insemination upon any female human being shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than five years. (b) Any physician or surgeon who obtains written authorization signed by both the husband and the wife authorizing him or her to perform or administer artificial insemination shall be relieved of civil liability to the husband and wife or to any child conceived by artificial insemination for the result or results of said artificial insemination, provided that the written authorization provided for in this Code section shall not relieve any physician or surgeon from any civil liability arising from his or her own negligent administration or performance of artificial insemination.
History
Code 1933, § 74-101.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1964, p. 166, § 1; Code 1981, § 43-34-42; Code 1981, § 43-34-37, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509; Ga. L. 2010, p. 878, § 43/HB 1387.
Annotations
Cross references. - Legitimacy of children conceived by means of artificial insemination, § 19-7-21. Giving consent for surgical or medical treatment generally, T. 31, C. 9.
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509, effective July 1, 2009, redesignated former Code Section 43-34-37 as present Code Section 43-34-8. Law reviews. - For note, ‘‘Conceiving Equality: Infertility-Related Illness Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,’’ see 26 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 1361 (2010).
PHYSICIANS, ASSISTANTS, & OTHERS
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Application to sperm bank. - O.C.G.A. § 43-34-37(b) arises in the Code section limiting the practice of medicine, including artificial insemination, to licensed physicians and surgeons. That Code section applies only to the medical
procedure of artificial insemination and does not include the negligent sale or screening of sperm; the statute, therefore, did not apply to the parents’ claims against a sperm bank. Norman v. Xytex Corp., 310 Ga. 127, 848 S.E.2d 835 (2020).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Delegation to physician’s assistants or others. - Administration and performance of artificial insemination upon female human beings may not be delegated
by a licensed physician to a physician’s assistant or other qualified allied health personnel. 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-87.
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Coverage of artificial insemination procedures or other infertility
treatments by health, sickness, or hospitalization insurance, 80 A.L.R.4th 1059.
Notes of Decisions
Norman v. Xytex Corp., 848 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 6× “The Normans argue that the legislature has already recognized such actions in the artificial insemination context by enacting OCGA § 43-34-37 (b). That statute, enacted in 1964, see Ga.”
Patton v. Vanterpool, 806 S.E.2d 493 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “1073 (1996 Session). Likewise, other portions of the 1964 Act have been amended since the development of IVF technology and continue to include the term “artificial insemination” without expansion.”
Zitrin v. Georgia Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 653 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “*296 Here, the record shows that pursuant to OCGA § 43-34-37 (d), 2 Zitrin filed a request for investigation with the Board, seeking an “investigation into the activities of all physicians who may have engaged in prohibited medical practices during the course of any executions…”
Wills v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 384 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Rejecting this or any exception to the confidentiality requirements of the statute, we held that OCGA § 43-34-37 (d) “flatly prohibits release of the entire investigative file,” Morton, supra at 847 , and that “[o]ur statute expressly prohibits disclosure, without exceptions.”
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See also O.C.G.A. § 43-34-37(c), which provides: "In its discretion, the board may restore and reissue a license to practice medicine issued under this chapter or any antecedent law and, as a condition thereof, may impose any disciplinary or corrective measure provided in this…”
Blackmon v. State, 598 S.E.2d 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “‘[c]onvicted’or‘conviction’refers to a final conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or affording of first offender treatment by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Clower v. Orthalliance, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “4 No one contends that Defendant, actually performed any dental service. Nevertheless, Georgia has formally prohibited corporations from employing such licensed practitioners as orthodontists under a corporate practice of medicine, or dentistry, doctrine.”
Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, P.C., 509 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” In fact, OCGA § 43-34-37 (a) (13) expressly authorizes the State Board of Medical Examiners to discipline licensed physicians who “[b]ecome unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of .”
Am. Ass'n of Cab Companies, Inc. v. Olukoya, 505 S.E.2d 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Admission of investigative records of the Board appear to be precluded by OCGA § 43-34-37 (d) (“no part of any such record shall be released for any purpose other than a hearing before the board; nor shall such records be subject to subpoena”).”
Kutner v. Davenport, 360 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Three issues are involved in determining the admissibility of the notices at issue: First, whether the Board is a “medical review committee” within the meaning of OCGA § 31-7-140 so that the notices are inadmissible under OCGA § 31-7-143; second, whether the notices are records…”
— 43-34-37(a)(4) — 1 case
— 43-34-37(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999).
“See also O.C.G.A. § 43-34-37(c), which provides: "In its discretion, the board may restore and reissue a license to practice medicine issued under this chapter or any antecedent law and, as a condition thereof, may impose any disciplinary or corrective measure provided in this…”
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.