O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 49-2-15 (2019)

Service of process against department

✓ 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

When any action is brought against the Department of Human Services, the Board of Human Services, the commissioner of human services, or any employee or agent thereof or when any action is brought in which the department could be held responsible for damages awarded in such action, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to provide for service of notice of the pendency of such action by providing for service of a second original process, issued from the court in which the action is filed, upon the commissioner of human services personally or upon a person designated by the commissioner in writing to serve as agent for the acceptance of such service of process. The service of process in such action shall not be perfected until such second original process has been served as provided in this Code section. The provisions of this Code section shall be cumulative of any other requirements imposed by law for the service of process or notice.

History

Code 1981, § 49-2-15, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 497, § 1; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 2-1/HB 228.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1989, p. 497, § 2, not codified by

the General Assembly, provided that the amendment to this Code section by the Act shall apply to all actions filed on or after July 1, 1989.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No application to review of decision on placing person on child abuse registry. - Alleged child abuser properly served the Department of Human Services with a petition for judicial review of a decision to place the alleged abuser on the child abuse registry, under former O.C.G.A. § 49-5-183, by serving the attorneys who had represented the department

before the administrative law judge; the alleged abuser was not required to serve the commissioner of the department. O.C.G.A. § 49-2-15, requiring service on the commissioner by second original process in actions against the department, did not apply. Schuman v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 354 Ga. App. 509, 841 S.E.2d 218, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 200 (2020).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: In the Interest of K. D., 613 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of K. D., 613 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “ng; whether Alderman or DFACS had proper notice of the juvenile court’s ex parte hearing with the CASAbefore the court signed the custody transfer order, as required by OCGA § 9-10-2; whether Alderman received a proper citation, notice, and hearing as required by the due process…”

Patrick Schuman v. Georgia Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Fam. & Child. Servs. (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 30× “5 The department contends that Schuman was also required to comply with the service requirements of OCGA § 49-2-15. That statute is part of the Article creating the Department of Human Services, but it is in a different Chapter from the one containing the Article that creates…”

In Re Kd, 613 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “g; whether Alderman or DFACS had proper notice of the juvenile court's ex parte hearing with the CASA before the court signed the custody transfer order, as required by OCGA § 9-10-2; whether Alderman received a proper citation, notice, and hearing as required by the due process…”

Germany Dessalines v. Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Fam. & Child. Serivces (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “the ‘second original process’ referenced in OCGA § 49-2-15 is the one set out at OCGA § 9-10-72 for defendants who reside outside the county where the action is filed.”

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.