In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 3 G1 7 3 3

. GALLANT, e t a l. v . Ma c DOWELL.

B ENHAM , Ju stic e

.

Th is i s a ca s e o f a lle g e d d e n ta l m a lp ra c tic e

. Th e tria l c o u rt g ra n te d

su m m ary ju d g m e n t to a

p p e lla n ts S te v e n M. Ga lla n t, D.D.S

. an d th e p ro fe ssio n a l

c o rp ora tio n th ro u g h wh ic h h e p ra c tic e s. T he Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls re v e rse d th e tria l

c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t 1 a n d th is Co u rt g ra n te d a p p e lla n ts’ p e titio n

fo r a writ o f c e rtio ra ri, d ire c tin g th e p a rtie s to b rie f th e fo llo win g :

Did th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls e rr wh e n it h e ld th a t th e sta tu to ry p e rio d [o f

lim ita tio n ] wa s to lle d e v e n a fte r th e p la in tiff c o n su lte d with a se c o n d

d e n tist? S e e W

ith e rsp o o n v

. Ara n a s , 2 5 4 Ga

. Ap p

. 6 0 9

, 6 1 4 (2 ) (b ) (5 6 2 S E2 d 8 5 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ), o v e rru le d o n oth e r g ro u n d s b y Ch a n d le r v

. Op e n sid e d MRI o f Atla nta

, L L C

, 2 9 9 Ga

. Ap p. 1 4 5

, 1 57 (2 ) (b ) (6 8 2

S E2 d 1 6 5 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

As se t fo rth b e lo w, we a ffirm th e Co u rt o f Ap pe a ls.

As m o re fu lly se t fo rth in th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls o pin i o n , a pp e lle e Ursu la

Ma c Do we ll wa s re fe rre d by a n o th e r d e ntist to b o th Dr. Ga lla nt, a g e n e ra l

p ra c titio n e r with a sp e c ia lty in p ro sth e tic s, a n d Mo llie An n W in sto n , D.D.S

., a n

1 MacDowell v. Gallant

, 323 Ga. App. 61 (744 SE2d 836) (2013).o ra l su rg e o n , fo r th e m jo in tly to p ro v id e p ro fe ssio n a l se rv ic e s n e c e ssa ry fo r a fu ll

mo u th p ro sth o d on tic re c o n stru c tio n

. 2 Th e se two d e n tists m a in ta in se p a ra t e

p ra c tic e s a n d e n g a g e in d iffe re n t p ro fe ssio n a l sp e c ia ltie s, b u t th e re c o rd re fle c ts

th e y wo rk e d t o g e t h e r a s a te a m to p e rfo rm re c o nstru c tiv e de n ta l se rv ic e s fo r

Ma c Do we ll. Ba se d u p o n a tre a tm e n t p la n de v ise d b y Dr. Ga lla n t, D r. Win sto n

wa s to e x tra c t c e rta in te e th a n d p la c e im

p la nts in to Ma c Do we ll’s ja w wh ic h Dr.

Ga lla nt wo u ld utiliz e in th e in sta lla tio n o f d e n ta l p ro sth e se s. Th e re c o rd re fle c ts

th a t sh ortly a fte r th e first o f se v e ra l im p la n t p ro c e d u re s, in Au g u st o f 2 0 0 6 , Dr.

Ga lla nt d e te rm in e d th a t, in his o p in io n , th e im p la nts h a d b e e n im

p ro p e rly p la c e d

in su c h a m a n n e r a s to m a k e th e in sta lla tio n o f p r o s t h e se s d iffic u lt. In fa c t, h e

c o n su lte d with a

n oth e r d e ntist, D r. Ha l Arn old

, w h o c on firm e d Dr. Ga lla n t ’ s

o p in io n

. At th a t tim e , th e im p la n ts we re n e w, a n d o n e tre a tm e n t o ptio n wa s to

h a v e th e m re m o v e d a n d re p la c e d b e fo re th e y i n t e g r a t e d in to th e b o n e

. Dr.

Ga lla nt, h o we v e r, a d m its he d id n o t in fo rm Ma c Do we ll o f h is o p in io n o r d isc u ss

th e o p tio n s fo r tre a tm e n t with h e r. In ste a d

, h e e x e rc ise d h is o wn ju d g m e n t th a t

it wo uld b e b e st to wo rk a ro u n d th e d iffic ultie s c re a te d b y th e im p la nts a n d g o

fo rwa rd with in sta llin g th e p ro sth e se s, so a s n o t to p u t th e p a tie n t th ro u g h th e

2 I d. at 62.

2p ro c e ss o f re m o v in g a n d re p la c in g th e im p l a n ts, b e c a

u se sh e h a d b e e n th ro u g h

“ e n o u g h .”

Th e p ro sth e se s we re in sta lle d o v e r a p e rio d o f tim e , a n d th e re c o rd re fle c ts

th a t u p on Dr. G a lla n t’s in sta lla tio n o f th e fin a l pe rm a n e n t p ro sth e sis, Ma c Do we ll

c o m m e n c e d m a k in g n u m e ro u s c o m p la in ts a b ou t th e ir fit and c o mf

o r t a n d Dr.

Ga lla nt m a d e m a n y a d

ju stm e n ts in re sp o n se to th e se c o m p la in ts. At o n e p oin t,

in No v e m

b e r 2 0 0 7

, Dr. Ga lla n t re fe rre d Ma c Do we ll to Dr. Win sto n a g a in fo r

e x a m in a tio n o f h e r m o uth du e to h e r c o n tin ue d p ro b le m s. Du rin g th a t v isit, Dr.

Win sto n in fo rm e d M a c Do we ll th a t D r. G a lla n t’s re c o n stru c tio n p ro c e ss wa s

ta k in g to o lo n g a n d th a t h e r re c o n stru c tio n wa s to o n a rro w , th e re b y c a u sin g th e

p ro b le m s sh e wa s e x p e rie n c in g

. Dr. Ga lla n t c on tin u e d t o m a k e a d ju stm e n ts,

Ma c Do we ll c o n tin u e d to v o ic e c o m p la in ts

, a n d s h e sa w Dr. Win sto n a g a in in

Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 8

, a t w h ic h tim e D r

. W i n s t o n re ite ra te d he r op in io n th a t th e

p ro sth e se s w e re n o t p ro pe rly c o n fig u re d

. F in a lly

, Dr. Ga lla n t re fe rre d

Ma c Do we ll to Dr. Arn old fo r a se c o n d op in io n

. O n F e b ru a ry 1 3

, 2 0 0 8

, Dr.

Arn old e x a m in e d M a c Do we ll a n d c o m m e n c e d tre a tin g h e r b y c o mp l e t e ly

re m a k in g th e p ro sth e se s th a t h a d a lre a d y b e e n in sta lle d

. Dr. Arn o ld te stifie d h e

d isc u sse d with th e p a tie n t th e im p ro p e r p la c e m e n t a n d a n g ula tio ns o f th e

3im

p la n ts.

Ma c Do we ll file d h e r c o m pla in t fo r p ro fe ssio n a l m a lp ra c tic e a n d o th e r

c la im s a g a in st Dr. Ga lla n t on Ja n ua ry 2 6

, 2 01 0. A p p e l l a n t s file d a m o tio n fo r

su m m ary ju d g m e n t a sse rtin g th a t th e su it wa s tim e -b a rre d

. In re sp o n se ,

Ma c Do we ll a rg u e d th a t th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n wa s to lle d b y Dr. Ga lla n t’s

a lle g e d fra u d u le n t c o nc e a lm e n t of h is o p in io n th a t th e im p la n ts h a d b e e n

im p ro p e rly p la c e d e v e n th ou g h h e c on tin u e d to tre a t Ma c Do w e ll an d c o m p le te

th e re sto ra tio n u sin g th e se im p la n ts. S h e fu rth e r a s s e rte d th a t sh e d id n o t

d isc o v e r th e p ro b le m s with th e im p la n t s , o r Dr. Ga lla n t’s k n o wle d g e o f th o se

p ro b le m s a n d h o w th e y wo u ld im p a c t h e r tre a tm e n t, u n til sh e c o n su lte d with Dr.

Arn old o n F e bru a ry 1 3

, 2 0 0 8

, wh ic h wa s le ss th an two y e a rs b e fo re sh e file d th e

c o m p la in t. Citin g Pric e v

. Cu rrie

, 2 6 0 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 2 6 (5 8 0 S E2 d 2 9 9 ) (2 0 0 3 ), th e

tria l c o u rt g ra n te d a

p p e lla n ts’ m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t s o le ly u p o n th e

fin d in g th a t e ve n if th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n wa s to lle d b y fra u d

, n e v e rth e le ss a s

o f th e d a te Ma c D o we ll so u g h t th e c are o f Dr. W i n s t o n o n J a n u ary 8

, 2 0 0 8

,

c o m p la in in g o f th e fit a n d c o m fo rt o f th e p ro sth e se s, Ma c Do we ll h a d th e re by

“ c o n su lte d w ith a n o th e r d oc to r,” an d wa s o n n o tic e o f th e to rt so th a t th e sta tu te

b e g a n to ru n

. Th e Co urt of Ap p e a ls re v e rse d th e su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o rd e r o n th e

4g ro u n d th a t th e v isits to Dr. Win sto n d id n o t e nd th e to llin g o f th e sta t u t e o f

lim ita tio n b e c a

u se “ b y c on su ltin g with Win sto n , Ma c Do w e ll c a n n o t b e d e e m e d

to h a v e so u gh t a n in d

e pe n d e n t m e d ic a l o p in io n su c h th a t sh e re a so n a b ly c ou ld

h a v e d isc o v e re d h e r c a

u se o f a c tio n .” 3 We a g re e

.

Ge n e ra lly

, a n a c tio n f

o r me d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e m u st b e b ro u g h t with in two

y e a rs a fte r th e d a te o n wh ic h a n in ju ry a risin g fro m a

n e g lig e nt a c t o r o m issio n

o c c u rre d

. OCGA § 9 -3 -7 1. P u rsu a n t to O CGA § 9 -3 -9 6

, h o we ve r, th e p e rio d o f

lim ita tio n fo r filin g a n a c tio n a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t is to lle d wh e re th e d e fe n d a n t is

g u ilty o f f

r a u d b y wh ic h th e p la in tiff is d e b a rre d o r d e te rre d fro m b rin g in g th e

a c tio n , a n d th e lim ita tio n p e rio d c o mme n c e s t o ru n o n ly fro m th e tim e th e

p la in tiff d isc ov e rs th e fra u d

. Ge o rg ia a p p e lla te c o u rts ha v e h e ld t h a t “ [o ] n c e a

p la in tiff se e k s th e d ia g n osis o r c a re o f a no th e r d o c to r, sh e is n o lo n g e r d e te rre d

fro m le a rn in g t h e t r u e fa c ts b y a n y c on du c t o f a d e fe n d a n t ‘e v e n if th e o th e r

d o c to r c o n su lte d do e s n o t d ia g n o se th e m e d ic a l p r o b l e m a s a risin g fro m th e

d e fe n d a n t’s im

pro p e r tre a tm e n t.’” W

ith e rsp o o n v

. Ara n a s , 2 5 4 Ga

. Ap p

. 6 0 9

, 6 1 4

(2 ) (b ) (5 6 2 S E2 d 8 5 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ), o v e rru le d o n oth e r g r o u n d s b y Ch a n d le r v

.

Op e n sid e d MRI of

A tla n ta

, L LC

, 2 9 9 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 4 5

, 1 57 (2 ) (b ) (6 8 2 S E2 d 1 6 5 )

3 I d. at 64. (Emphasis in the orig inal.)

5(2 0 0 9 ), c itin g Bry a n t v

. Crid e r , 2 0 9 Ga . Ap p . 6 2 3 , 6 27 (4 3 4 SE2 d 1 6 1 ) (1 9 93 ).

Th o se c a se s in wh ic h c o nsu lta tio n with a n o t h e r d o c to r wa s d e e m e d to h a v e

trig g e re d th e e n d o f th e to ll i n g o f t h e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n fo r a lle ge d fra u d

in v o lv e in sta n c e s in wh i c h t h e o th e r d o c to r c o n su lte d wa s o n e wh o wa s n o t

p re v io u sly a sso c ia te d with th e p la in tiff’s c a re o r th e tre a tm e n t th a t wa s a lle g e d ly

n e g lig e n tly re n d e re d

. 4

In th is c a se , h o we v e r, Drs. Win sto n a n d Ga lla nt jo in tly tre a te d Ma c Do we ll

fo r h e r d e n ta l p ro b le m s, with o n e d o c to r p ro v id in g o n e pa rt o f th e n e c e ssa ry

d e n ta l se rv ic e s a

n d th e o th e r do c to r p ro v id in g a n o th e r p a rt o f th o se se rv ic e s. Th e

re c o rd re fle c ts th e two d oc to rs c o n su lte d with e a c h o th e r o n th e c a se th ro u g ho u t

th e c o u rse o f tre a tm e nt a n d e a c h re lie d u p o n th e oth e r fo r th e o th e r d o c to r’s

p o rtio n o f th e wo rk

. Ev e n th o u g h Ma c Do we ll sa w Dr. Win sto n in N o ve m b e r o f

2 0 0 7 an d Ja n ua ry of 20 0 8 fo r th e sp e c ific pu rp o se o f h av i n g he r re v ie w th e

p ro b le m s Ma c D o we ll wa s e x p e rie n c in g with t h e p ro sth e se s, Dr. Win sto n h a d

tre a te d Ma c Do we ll o n n u m e ro u s o c c a sio n s, in c o n ju n c tio n with Dr. Ga lla n t,

4 See, e.g ., Price v

. Currie

, supra; Lorelli v. Sood

, 259 Ga. App. 166 (576 SE2d 5 6 5) (2002); Knight v. Sturm

, 212 Ga. App. 391 (1), (2) (442 SE2d 2 55) (1994); P adgett v. Klaus

, 201 Ga. App.

399 (1) (411 SE2d 1 26) (1991); Cannon v. Smith

, 187 Ga. App. 434 (370 SE2d 529) (1988); Shved

v. Daly, 174 Ga. App. 209 (329 SE2d 536) (1985); Forgay v. Tucker

, 128 Ga. App. 497 ( 197 SE2d 492) (1973).

6c o m m e n c in g in 2 0 0 6

. D r. Win sto n wa s in e x tric a bly in v o lv e d i n t h e tre a tm e n t

Ma c Do we ll n ow c la im s wa s n e g lig e n tly re n d e re d

, e ve n if Ma c Do we ll h a s su e d

o n ly Dr. Ga lla nt. As Dr. Win sto n , h e rse lf, p la c e d th e im p la n ts, c o nsu ltin g w ith

Dr. Win sto n c o u ld n o t a u t o ma t i ca lly b e d e e m e d to h a ve p la c e d Ma c Do we ll o n

n o tic e o f p ro b le m s with th e im p la n ts, o r D r. Ga lla n t’s o p in io n th a t Ma c Do we ll’s

c o m p la in ts a n d th e p ro ble m s a sso c ia te d with th e in sta lla tio n o f th e p ro sth e s e s

we re c a u se d b y im

p ro p e r pla c e m e n t o f th e im p la n ts, b u t th a t h e fa ile d to d isc lo se

th is to Ma c D o we ll. 5 It c a n n ot b e sa id th a t Ma c D o w e l l w a s n o lo ng e r d e te rre d

fro m le a rn in g th e a lle g e d tru e fa c ts a s a re su lt o f th e se v isits to Dr. Win sto n

.

We re je c t a p p e lla n ts’ a sse rtio n th a t th is h old in g im p ro p e rly in frin g e s u p o n

th e le g isla tu re ’s ro le b y e n g ra ftin g a ne w p ro v isio n o n to th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n

.

5 W e note that appellants contended at oral arg ument that, even if M a c D o w e ll’s

consultations w i t h D r. W inston did not qualify as c onstructive notice of the alleg ed tort, in those

discussions Dr. W inston provided MacDowell w ith actual notice of D r. G a l l ant’s alleg ed malpractice

. I t i s t r u e that the tolling of the statute of limitation r esulting from fraudulent

concealment of malpractice ends when the plaintiff discovers the concealed tort, which may result

from actual notice of the malpractice from any source, including the orig inal doctor or a n associated doctor, as w e l l as from the constructive notice that is deemed to occur when the plaintiff consults

with an independent doctor. See B a uer v. W eeks

, 2 6 7 Ga. App. 617, 619 (600 SE2d 700) (2004) (“The statute of limitation is only tolled until t h e f r a u d i s discovered or by reasonable dilig ence should have been discovered.”); Stephen W

. Brown R a diology Assocs. v. Gowers

, 157 Ga. App. 770,

774 (278 SE2d 653) 1 981) (“The statute beg ins to run from the time the patient has knowledg e, or

t h r o u g h the ex ercise of o rdinary care could have learned o f the ex istence of the tort to hi m

. ” )

. However, the trial court r elied o n ly on constructive n otice i n gr a n ting summary judg ment to appellants, the Cout of Appeals did not address whether MacDowell received actual n otice of Dr.

Gallant’s alleg ed malpractice from D r. W inston, and the issue h a s n ot b een fully briefed in this

Court. W e therefore leave the issue to be addressed on remand.

7Th e to llin g sta tu te a lre a d y p r o v id e s th a t, wh e re th e d e fe n d an t h a s e n g a g e d in

fra u d b y wh ic h th e p la in tiff h a s b e e n de b a rre d or d e t e r r e d f r o m b rin g in g a n

a c tio n , th e p e rio d o f lim ita tio n ru n s o nly fro m th e p la in tiff’s d i s c o v e ry o f su c h

fra u d

. OCGA § 9 -3 -9 6

. Th o se c a se s in wh ic h th e a p p e lla te c o u rts h a v e h e ld th a t

th e t o l l in g of th e p e rio d of lim ita tio n a s a re su lt o f fra u d e n d s a t th e p o in t a t

wh ic h a p la in tiff se e k s th e d ia g n o sis of a n oth e r d oc to r a re b a se d u p o n th e

ra tio n a le th a t, a t su c h a po in t, th e p la in tiff is n o lo n g e r de te rre d, b y a n y c o n d u c t

o f th e d e fe n d a

n t, fro m le a rn in g th e tru e fa c ts. S e e , e .g ., Bry an t v

. Crid e r , su p ra ,

2 0 9 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 6 2 7. ( “ O n c e a pla in tiff se e ks th e d ia g n o sis o r c a re of a n o th e r

d o c to r, sh e is n o lo n g e r d e te rre d fro m le arn in g th e tru e fa c ts

. . . .” ). Wh e re , a s

h e re , th e d o c to r c o n su lte d is o n e wh o h a s p ro v id e d pro fe ssio n a l se rv ic e s to th e

p la in tiff jo in tly with th e d e fe n d a n t, th a t ra tio n a le do e s n o t a pp ly

. Th e ju d g m e n t

o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls is a f f i r me d

. W e n o te

, h owe v e r, th a t o th e r g ro u n d s fo r

su m m ary ju d g m e n t re m a in to b e a d d re sse d b y th e tria l c o u rt u p on re m a n d

. 6

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

6 The trial court h as n ot y e t found that fraud is actually present in this case so as to toll the

statute of limitation. I t simply found that even if f raud ex isted and the statute was tolled, the period

would run ag ain so as to time bar the c laims asserted. The question of w hether fraud ex its, therefore,

remains undetermined.

8