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

O.C.G.A. § 43-34-38 (2019)

Access to medical treatment; experimental and nonconventional medical treatments

✓ 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

Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2016, p. 345, § 2/HB 34, effective July 1, 2016.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - This Code section was based on Code 1981, § 43-34-42.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1100, § 1; Code

1981, § 43-34-38, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1993–1999 · leading case: United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “See O.C.G.A. § 43-34-38. Defendant contends that the district court was required to abide by these state law procedures in forfeiting Defendant’s medical license because the forfeiture, in effect, operates as a revocation of Defendant’s license.”
Hutchinson v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 429 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 7× “In response to appellant’s demand for a hearing, appellees relied on the provision in OCGA § 43-34-38 that refusal of a license is not a contested case within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, that notice and hearing within the meaning of the Act was not required,…”
Howard v. Miller, 870 F. Supp. 340 (N.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “Under that statute (part of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act), an agency has the authority to order the summary suspension of “any license” without notice and a hearing if it makes a finding that “the public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency…”
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “See O.C.G.A. § 43-34-38. Defendant contends that the district court was required to abide by these state law procedures in forfeiting Defendant’s medical license because the forfeiture, in effect, operates as a revocation of Defendant’s license.”
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.