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.
This article shall not apply to actions for medical malpractice as defined in Code Section 9-3-70.
History
Code 1933, § 3-718, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1363, § 2.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 9-3-34 does not violate equal protection when applied to loss of consortium actions arising out of medical malpractice. Perry v. Atlanta Hosp. & Medical Ctr., 255 Ga. 431, 339 S.E.2d 264, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 544 (1986). Loss of consortium claim arising out of medical malpractice. - Because the four-year time limit does not apply to loss of consortium claims arising out of
medical malpractice, and the plaintiffs only have two years in which to file the plaintiffs’ claims for loss of consortium arising out of medical malpractice, the spouse’s loss of consortium claim was time barred as the claim was filed more than two years after the patient’s injury. Beamon v. Mahadevan, 329 Ga. App. 685, 766 S.E.2d 98, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 763 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case:
Beamon v. Mahadevan, 766 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Beamon v. Mahadevan, 766 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “8 But this ignores OCGA § 9-3-34, which states that the article containing OCGA § 9-3-33 “shall not apply to actions for medical malpractice.”
Perry v. Atlanta Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc., 339 S.E.2d 264 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Appellant concedes that if he is bound *432 by the statute of limitations for loss of consortium in medical malpractice actions, OCGA §§ 9-3-34 and 9-3-71, his suit is untimely as it was not filed within two years of the negligent act.”
Charles Beamon v. Chalam Mahadevan (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Teddy contends that the trial court erred by ruling that her loss of consortium claim is time barred as well, arguing that such claims are subject to the four-year time limit in OCGA § 9-3-33.”
Leigh Ann Youngblood-West v. Aflac Inc. (11th Cir. 2019).
“Youngblood-West was not entitled to tolling of the limitation period nor to estop the defendants from asserting the limitations period as a defense.”
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.