Case Title: Chandler Exterminators v. Morris

Citation: 262 Ga. 257, 416 S.E.2d 277

Docket Number: S91G1591

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
262 Ga. 257 (1992) 416 S.E.2d 277 CHANDLER EXTERMINATORS, INC. v. MORRIS et al. S91G1591. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided May 21, 1992. Reconsideration Denied June 11, 1992. Eason, Kennedy & Associates, Richard B. Eason, Jr., for appellant. Wilson, Strickland & Benson, Warner R. Wilson, Jr., Samuel T. Brannen III, for appellees. WELTNER, Presiding Justice. We granted certiorari in Morris v. Chandler Exterminators, 200 Ga. App. 816 (409 SE2d 677) (1991) to consider: 1. Based upon the results of clinical interviews and evaluations of four members of the Morris family, a neuropsychologist testified by affidavit that each had organic brain damage "as a result of exposure to, and inhalation of, the chemical Aldrin."[1] 2. The trial court granted Chandler Exterminators' motion to strike the affidavit of the psychologist, stating: *258 The record shows, Dr. Currie's opinions are too speculative and incompetent as to medical causation. 3. The following authorities control: (a) OCGA § 43-39-1 (2) defines and limits the practice of psychology as follows: (b) In Hammond v. State, 156 Ga. 880 (2) (120 SE 539) (1923), we stated: (c) In Barrow v. State, 235 Ga. 635 (221 SE2d 416) (1975), we stated: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the affidavit of the psychologist. 4. We do not address Division 2 of the Court of Appeals opinion, and it stands affirmed. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part. All the Justices concur. [1] The affidavit stated, in pertinent part: Affiant states that in his opinion the physical organic brain damage measured by him in the Morris family is in the cortical portion of the brain which is an area of the brain most likely to experience injury from the absorption by a person, by inhalation or skin contact, with a neuro-toxic chemical such as Aldrin. [2] Compare OCGA § 43-34-20 (3): "To practice medicine" means to hold one's self out to the public as being engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of disease, defects, or injuries of human beings; or the suggestion, recommendation, or prescribing of any form of treatment for the intended palliation, relief, or cure of any physical, mental, or functional ailment or defect of any person.... Hence, a psychologist is not qualified to render an opinion concerning a diagnosis of a mental disorder when such disorder requires a professional opinion as to a physical disorder here, organic brain damage. Of course, a physical disorder may manifest psychological effects, concerning which a psychologist may render an opinion.