FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, RI C KM A N and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

October 6, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 44 2

. PNEUM O ABEX, LLC, et al

. v

. SHEILA LONG, et al

.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

P n e u m o Ab ex

, LLC an d Gen u i n e Part s Co m p an y 1 ap p eal t h e t ri al co u rt ’s

p art i al g ran t o f su m

m ary ju d g m en t t o Sh ei l a Lo ng

— i n d i v i d u a l l y an d as p ers o n al

rep res en t at i v e o f h er lat e h u sb an d ’ s es t at e 2

— i n h er t o x i c-t o rt act i o n

, a lle g ing tha t R o n

d i ed fro m l u n g can cer as a res u l t o f ex p o su re t o as bes t o s co n t ai n ed i n cert a in

p ro d uct s

. Lo n g s o u g h t s u m m ary ju d gm en t o n affi rm at i v e d efen s es t h a t s h e

an t i ci p at ed t he ap pel l an ts m i g h t p u rs u e. No w, t h e ap p el l an ts arg u e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

1 Ho n ey wel l In t ern at i o n al

, In c.— t he s u cces s o r i n i n t eres t t o t h e Ben d ix

Co rp o rat i o n

— al s o ap p eal ed fro m t he t ri al co u r t’ s or de r

, b ut w i t hd rew fro m t h e ap p eal

aft er en t eri n g i n t o a s et t l em en t wi th Sh ei l a Lo n g . Pn eu m o Ab ex , LLC an d Gen u i n e

Part s Co m

pan y are t h e o n l y

rem ai n i n g ap p el l an t s

.

2 Fo r t h e s ak e o f cl ari t y

, we refer t o Sh ei l a L on g as “ Lo n g ” an d Ro n Lo n g as

“ Ro n ” t h ro u g h o ut t h i s o pi n i o n

.erred i n g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t t o L o n g as t o t h ei r n o n -p art y fau l t d efen s e an d

o n “ al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s .” Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i nf r a , we affi rm

.

Vi e w i n g t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g ht m o st fav o rab le t o t h e ap p el l an t s ( i .e

., t h e

n o n m o v i n g part i es ), 3 t h e reco rd s h o w s t h at fro m 1 9 7 7 u n ti l 1 9 9 9

, Ro n wo rk ed as a

tr u ck an d au t o m o b i l e m ech an i c fo r v ari o u s co m p an i es an d t h en at h i s o w n au t o m o b i l e

rep ai r s h o p

. Du ri ng h i s career, Ro n p erfo rm ed nu m ero u s b rak e, cl u t ch

, an d g as k et

rep l acem en t s ; an d so m e o f t h e eq u i p m en t an d m at eri al s h e u s ed i n t h e co u rs e o f h i s

wo rk were m an u fact u red b y t h e ap p el l an t s an d co n tai n ed as b es t o s

. On No v em b er 1 1,

2 0 1 4

, Ro n was d i ag n o s ed wi t h p u l m on ary ad en o carci n o m a, a fo rm o f l u n g can cer.

Acco rd in g t o o n e o f h i s t reat i n g p h y s i ci an s

, Ro n w as ex p o s ed t o as b es t o s i n t h e

3 S ee

, e.g

. , Ma rt i n v. H

er r i n g t o n M

i l l

, LP

, 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 6 96

, 69 6 (7 3 0 SE2 d

1 6 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Th e reco rd befo re u s co n s i s t s of 1 4 ,4 7 8 p ag es co n t ai n ed i n 5 4 v o l u m es

. An d as we h av e p rev i o u s ly n o t ed

, we wi l l n o t “ cu l l t h e reco rd o n b eh a l f o f a p art y

,

p art i cu l arl y i n a cas e s u ch as t h i s wh ere t he reco rd i s v ol u m i n o u s

. ” Ca l l a wa y v.

W i l l ar d

, 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p . 1 , 5 (1 ) (8 3 0 SE2 d 4 6 4 ) (2 0 1 9 ); s ee H a r r is v. S t a t e , 2 5 6 Ga.

Ap p

. 1 2 0, 1 2 2 (2 ) (5 6 7 SE2 d 3 9 4 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ W e h av e rep eat ed l y hel d t h at i t is n o t t h e

fu n ct i o n of t h i s [C] o u rt t o cu ll th e reco rd o n b eh al f o f a p art y

. Th is i s part i cu l arl y t ru e

i n a cas e s u ch as t h is wh ere t h e t ran s cri p t al on e ex ceed s 1

, 5 0 0 p ag es .” (fo o t n o t e an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )). So

, wh i l e it ap p ears t he p art i es ’ b ri e f s a n d o ur i n d ep en d en t

rev i ew o f t he reco rd h av e i d en t i fi ed t h e p o rt i o n s o f th e reco rd rel ev an t to t h i s ap p eal

,

we cau t i o n th at “ i f we h av e m i s s ed s o m et h i n g i n t h e reco r d o r m i sco n s t ru ed an

arg u m en t

, t h e res p o n si b il i t y res t s wi t h [ap p el l an ts ’ ] co un s el

. ” Ca wt h on v. S t a t e

, 3 5 0

Ga. Ap p . 7 4 1 , 7 4 3 (8 3 0 SE2 d 2 7 0 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

2co u rs e o f h i s wo rk

, an d in th e d o c t o r’ s p ro fes si o n al o p i n io n

, Ro n’ s ex p o s u re to

as b es t o s was “ a s u b s t an t i al co nt ri b u t i n g fact o r i n cau si n g h i s l un g can cer.”

On Sep t em

b er 1 6

, 20 1 6

, p ri o r t o Ro n ’ s d eat h

, t h e Lo n g s fi l ed a n eg l i g en ce

co m p l ai n t ag ai n s t n u m ero us d efen d an t s

, al l eg in g

, i n ter a l i a

, t h at Ro n ’ s l u n g can cer

was a d i rect res u l t o f ex p o s u re t o as b es t os co n tai n e d i n t h ei r p ro d u ct s

. 4 Di s co v ery

en s u ed

, an d o v er a y ear lat er (aft er Ro n d ied fro m h i s l u n g can c e r), L on g fi l ed a

m o ti o n t o s u b s t i tu te h ers el f— in h er cap aci t y as th e ex ecu t or o f Ro n ’ s es t at e— i n p l ace

o f R o n a s a p l ai n t i ff. Lo n g al s o s o u g h t t o fi l e an am en d ed co m p l ai n t

, wh i ch

, i n t er

a l i a

, ad d ed a w ro n g fu l -d eat h c l ai m

. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed b o th req u es ts

, an d s o,

Lo n g p ro ceed ed wi th t h e cas e i n h er i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty

, as wel l as i n h er cap aci t y as

ex ecu t o r o f Ro n ’ s es t at e.

Th ereaft er, s ev eral part i es fi l ed m o t i o n s f o r sum m a r y j udgm en t

. Bu t th i s ap p eal

co n cern s Lo ng ’ s m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t “ reg ard ing va r ious a f f irm at i v e

d efen s es an d a l te r

nat i v e cau s at i o n .” Sp eci fi cal ly

, Lo n g arg u ed t h at

, d u ri n g d i s co v ery

,

t h e ap p el l an t s at t em

p t ed t o “ as s i g n l i ab i li t y ” fo r Ro n ’ s l u n g can cer t o ot h er cau s es

,

s u ch as ex p o s u re t o seco n d -h an d s m o k e, rad on

, o r d i es el ex h au s t ( i .e.

, “ al t ern at i v e

4 Th e Lo n g s al s o as sert ed cl ai m s fo r lo s s o f co n s o rt i u m

, p ro d u ct s l i ab i l i t y

, an d

p u n i t i v e d am ag es , b u t t h o s e cl ai m s are n o t at i s s ue i n t h i s ap peal

.

3carci n o g en s ”), b u t fo r pu rp o s es o f ap p o rt i o nm en t

, t h ey fai l ed t o s at i s fy t h ei r b u rd en

o f pres en t i n g an y co m

p et en t ev i d en ce t h a t Ro n was ex po s ed t o s uch al t ern at i v e

ca r c i n og en s

. Fu rt h erm o re, Lo ng co n ten d ed th at s h e h ad “ reas o n t o b el i ev e” t h e

ap p el l an t s i n t e n d e d t o as s i gn l iab i l i t y fo r Ro n’ s deat h to th e al leg ed m ed i cal

m al p ract i ce of h i s d o ct o rs

, wh o are n ot part i es t o t h i s cas e; b ut acco rd in g t o Lo n g,

t h ere w as n o ev id en ce th at an y s u ch m al p ract i ce o ccu rre d

. A s a res ul t

, Lo n g

m ai n t ai n ed t hat s h e was en t i t l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o th es e p o t en t i al defen s es

,

o r, al t ern at iv el y , t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u l d ex cl u d e an y ev i d en ce rel at ed t o t h em

.

Fo l l owi n g t h e ap p el lan t s ’ res p o n s e an d Lo n g’ s rep l y

, wh i ch a r e d i s cu s s ed

i n f r a

, t h e t ri al co u rt u lt i m at el y g ran t ed Lo n g ’ s m ot i o n

. 5 As t o t h e i s s u e o f al t ern at i v e

carci n o g en s

, th e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h at n o ex p ert wi t n es s i n t h e cas e— ei t h er fo r Lo n g

o r t h e ap p el l an t s

— tes ti fi ed t h at ex p o s u re t o s eco n d -h an d s m o k e, d i es el ex h au s t

, o r

rad o n co u l d h a v e c au s ed Ro n’ s can cer, an d cert ai n arg u m en t s t h ey m ad e were

i n co n s i s t e n t wi t h t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f req u i red b y t h e ap po rt i o n m en t s t at u t e.

Fu rt h erm o re, t h e co u rt fo u n d th at t h e affi d av i t o f t h e ap p el l an t s ’ ex p e r t (Dr. Al l an

5 It i s u n cl e a r w h et her th e t ri al co u rt h el d a h eari n g o n Lo n g’ s m o ti o n

, an d

al t h o u g h Lo n g referen ces a h eari n g

, s h e d o es n o t ci t e t o a h eari ng tran s cri p t i n t h e

s i zeab l e reco rd

. An d t h e ap p el l an t s m ak e n o referen ce t o t h e h eari n g at al l . Th u s

, i t

d o es no t ap p ear t h at a t ran s cri p t fro m a n y p o t e n t i al s u m m ary -ju d g m en t h eari n g i s

n eces s ary fo r o u r res o lu t i o n o f t h i s ap p eal

.

4Fei n g o l d )— i n wh i ch h e d et a i l ed h i s op i n i o n reg ard i n g t h e al l eg ed m ed i cal

m al p ract i ce o f Ro n ’ s p h y s i ci an s

— d i d n o t m eet t h e req u i red cau s at i o n s t a n d ard o f

ex p res s i n g h i s o p i n i o n wi t h “ a reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y .” Reg ard l es s

,

t h e co u rt al s o fo u n d t h at Fei n g o l d was n o t qu al i fi ed t o t es t i fy as an ex p ert b ecau s e h e

d i d n ot hav e t h e req u i s i t e ex p eri en ce as a pract i c i n g m ed i cal do ct o r i n t h e area o f

co n cern

. L as t l y

, t h e co urt fo u n d t h at an y i n ju ri es res u l t i n g fro m im

p ro p er o r u n s k i l l ed

m ed i cal t reat m en t b y a p h y s i ci an were a fo res eeab l e p art o f th e d am ag es res u l t i n g

fro m Ro n ’ s l u n g can cer. Th i s ap p eal fro m t he t ri al co u rt ’ s p art i al g ran t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f Lo ng fo l l o ws

.

Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s p ro p er wh en “ t h ere i s n o g en ui n e i s su e as t o an y m at eri al

fact an d t h e m o v i n g part y is en t i t l ed t o a ju d g m en t as a m at t er of law.” 6 Fu rt h erm o re,

a d e n o vo s t an d ard o f rev i ew “ ap p l i es t o an ap p eal fro m a g ran t or d en i al o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

, an d we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce, an d al l reas o n ab l e co n cl us i o n s an d i n feren ces

d rawn fro m i t

, i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e n o n m o v an t .” 7 An d at t he s u m m ary

ju d g m en t s t ag e, “ [w] e d o n ot res o l v e d i s p ut ed fact s, reco n ci le t h e i s su es , wei g h t h e

ev i d en ce, o r d et erm i n e i t s cred i b i l i ty

, as th o s e m at t ers m u s t b e s u bm i t t ed to a ju ry fo r

6 OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c); a cco r d Ma r t i n

, 3 16 Ga. Ap p . at 6 9 7

.

7 Ma r t i n , 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 9 7 (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

5res o l ut i o n.” 8 Nev ert h el es s

, i f th ere i s n o ev i d en ce s u ffi ci en t t o “ creat e a g en ui n e i s s u e

as t o an y es s en t i al el em en t o f [t h e] p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m

, t h at cl ai m t u m b l es l i k e a h o u s e

o f card s [,] ” an d al l o t her fact u al d i s p u t es ar e r e nd ered im m at eri al

. 9 W it h t h es e g u i d i n g

p ri n ci p l es i n m i n d , we n o w ad d res s t h e ap p el l an t s ’ s p eci fi c cl ai m s o f erro r.

1

. Th e ap p el lan t s arg u e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g s um m ary ju d g m en t

t o Lo n g as t o th e i r “ n o n[-] p art y fau l t d efen s e” th at Ro n ’ s t reat i n g ph y s i ci an s

co m m i t t ed m al p ract i ce, w h ich co n t ri b u t ed t o h i s “ i nju ri es o r d am ag es .” W e di s ag ree.

Un d er OCGA § 5 1 -1 2-3 3 (c), “ i n as s es s i n g percen tag es o f fau l t, t h e t ri er o f fact

s h a l l co n si d

er th e fau lt o f al l per

s o n s o r en t i ti es wh o co nt ri bu t ed t o t h e al l eg ed i n ju ry

o r d am ag es

, reg ard l es s o f wh et h er t h e p ers o n o r e n t i t y w a s, o r co u l d h av e b een

,

n am ed as a p art y t o t h e s u i t

. ” 1 0 In d eed

, t h e s t at u t e i s d es i g n ed t o ap p o rt i o n d am ag es

“ am o n g al l p e r s o n s o r en t i t i es wh o co nt ri b u ted t o t h e al l eg ed i n ju ry o r

8 To o kes v. Mu r r a

y , 2 9 7 Ga. Ap p . 7 6 5, 7 6 6 (6 7 8 SE2 d 2 09 ) (2 0 0 9).

9 McQu ai g v. Ta rr a n t

, 2 69 Ga. Ap p

. 23 6

, 2 37 (6 0 3 SE2 d 7 5 1 ) (2 0 0 4 ); a cco r d

Dyes s v. Br ewt o n , 2 8 4 Ga. 5 83 , 5 8 6 (3 ) (6 69 SE2 d 1 4 5) (2 00 8 ).

1 0 S w. E mer g en cy P h ys i ci a n s

, P.C. v. Qu i n n ey

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 0

, 4 2 1 (3 ) (8 1 9

SE2 d 6 9 6) (2 0 1 8), q uo t i n g OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (c).

6d am ag es

— ev en p ers o n s wh o are n o t an d co ul d n o t be m ad e part ies t o t he l aws u i t [.] ” 1 1

Bu t s i g n ifi can t l y

, t h e fau lt of a n o n -p art y “ can n o t be co n s i dered fo r t h e p urp o s es o f

ap p ort i o n i n g d am ag es wi t h ou t s o m e co m p et en t ev i d en ce t h at th e n o n [-] p art y i n fact

co n tri b u t ed t o t h e al l eg ed i n ju ry o r d am ag es .” 1 2 Su ffi ce i t t o s ay

, were i t ot h erwi s e,

t h ere wo ul d be “ n o li m it at i o n o n t h e n u m b er o f p o t e n t i a l n o n [-] p art i es t hat a t ri al

co u rt w o u l d be req u i red t o i ncl u d e on t h e v erd i ct fo rm fo r p u rp o s es of as s es si n g fau l t

u n d er OCGA § 51 -1 2 -3 3 (c).” 1 3

Th e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a h as h el d t h at u n der O C G A § 51 -1 2 -3 3 (c), a

p ers o n o r en t i t y wh o h as co nt ri b u t ed t o t h e al l eg ed i n ju ry o r d am ag es m ean s “ al l

p ers o n s o r en t i t i es w h o hav e b reach ed a l eg a l d u t y i n t o rt t h at i s o wed wi t h res p ect

t o t h e p l ai n t i ff, t h e b reach o f wh i ch i s a p ro x i m at e cau s e o f t he i n j u ry s u s t ai n ed b y t h e

1 1 Qu i n n ey, 3 4 7 G a

. A p p

. at 4 2 7 (4 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); acco r d Ma r t i n v.

S i x Fl a g s Over Geo rg i a II, L.P.

, 3 0 1 Ga. 3 2 3

, 3 3 7 (III) (8 0 1 SE2 d 2 4) (2 0 17 ); Co u ch

v. Red Ro o

f In n s , In c

. , 2 9 1 Ga. 3 5 9 , 3 6 2 (1 ) (7 2 9 SE2 d 3 78 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

1 2 Q u i n n ey, 3 4 7 Ga. A p p

. at 4 2 7 (4 ) (p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Un i o n

Ca r b i d e Co r p

. v. F i el ds , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p . 5 5 4, 5 5 9 (1 ) (b ) (i i ) (7 2 6 SE2 d 5 2 1 ) (2 0 1 2 ),

r ever s ed i n p a r t o n o t h er g r o un d s Geo r g i a-Pa c., LLC v. F

i e l d s

, 2 9 3 Ga. 4 9 9 (7 4 8

SE2 d 4 0 7) (2 0 1 3).

1 3 Qu i n n ey, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 2 7 (4 ) (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d F i el d s

, 3 1 5

Ga. Ap p . at 5 5 9 (1 ) (b ) (i i ) n .4

.

7p l ai n t i ff.” 1 4 An d t hat i n cl ud es n o t on l y t h e p l a i n t i ff an d d efen d an t s wi t h l i ab i l i t y to

t h e p l ai n t i ff, b ut al so “ ev ery o t h er t o r t f ea s o r wh o se co m mi s s i o n o f a t o rt as ag ai n s t

t h e p l ai nt i ff was a pro xi m at e cau s e o f h i s i n ju ry

, reg ard l es s o f w het h er s u ch t o r t f ea s o r

wo u l d h av e act u al l iab i l i t y i n t o rt t o t h e p l ai n t i ff.” 1 5 Fi n al ly

, w hi l e i t i s t h e d efen d an t ’ s

b u rd en t o es t ab l i s h a “ rat i o n al b as i s fo r ap p o rt i o n i ng fau l t t o a n o n -p art y

, wh et h er t h e

n o n -p art y co n t ri b u t ed t o t h e al l eg ed i n j u ry i s a q u es ti o n o f fact fo r a ju ry to deci d e.” 1 6

So

, b ecau s e t h e ap p el l an t s al l eg ed th at t h e no n -p art y t o rt feas o rs

— i .e.

, Ro n ’ s t reat i n g

p h y s i ci an s —co m

m i t t ed th e t o rt o f m ed ical m al pract ice, th ey can o nl y b e i n cl u d ed o n

t h e v erd i ct fo rm fo r p u rp o s es o f ap p o rt i o n m en t i f t h ere i s s o m e co m p et en t ev i d en ce

1 4 Za l d i va r v. S t a t e

, 2 9 7 Ga. 5 8 9

, 60 0 (1 ) (7 74 SE2 d 6 8 8) (2 01 5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); a cco rd Jo h n so n S t

. Pr o ps

., LLC v. Cl u r e

, 3 02 Ga. 5 1

, 5 8 (1 ) (b ) (8 0 5 SE2 d

6 0 ) (2 0 17 ); Al

s t o n & Bi r d LLP v. Ha t ch er Mg mt

. Ho ld i n g s

, LLC

, 3 36 Ga. A p p

. 5 2 7,

5 3 0 (7 85 SE2 d 5 4 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

1 5 Za l vi d a r

, 2 9 7 Ga. at 6 0 0 (1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) (e m p h as i s su p p l i ed );

a cco rd Al s t o n & Bi r d LLP

, 3 3 6 G a

. A p p

. at 5 3 0 ; s ee Za lvi d ar

, 2 9 7 Ga. at 5 9 8 (1 )

(“ [T] h e a ppor tionm e nt s ta tute pe r

m i ts co n s i d erat i o n

, g en eral l y s peak i n g, o f t he ‘ fau l t ’

o f a t o rt feas o r, n o t wi t h s tan d i n g t hat h e m ay h av e a m eri t o ri o us affi rm at iv e d efen s e

o r cl ai m o f i m m un i t y ag ai n st an y

l i ab i li t y t o t h e p lai n t i ff.”).

1 6 Cl u r e , 3 0 2 Ga. at 5 8 (1 ) (b ); s ee S i x Fl a g s O ver Ga . II, L.P. v. Ma r t i n , 3 3 5

Ga. Ap p

. 3 5 0, 3 6 4 -6 5 (3 ) (7 8 0 SE2 d 7 9 6 ) (2 0 1 5) (“ [I] t i s a d efen d an t ’ s b u rd en to

es t ab l i s h a rat io n al b as i s fo r a p p o r t i o n in g fau lt t o a no n [-] p art y ; b u t wh et h er t h e

d efen d an t m eet s t hat b u rd en g i v en t h e ev i d en ce at t ri al i s an is s u e t h at s h o u l d b e l eft

t o t h e ju ry .”), r ever

s ed i n p a r t o n o t h er gr o un d s b y M a r t i n v. S i x Fl ag s Over Ga

. II,

L.P. , 3 0 1 Ga. 3 2 3 (8 0 1 SE2 d 2 4 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

8t h at t h ey di d

, i n fact

, co m m it s u ch m al p ract i ce an d i t p ro x i m at el y cau s ed o r

co n tri b u t ed t o cau s in g Ro n ’ s i n ju ri es an d d am ag es

. 1 7

(a) Med i ca l Ma l

p r a ct i ce. To reco v er i n a m ed i cal -m al p ract i ce cas e, a p l ai n t i ff

m u st “ s h o w n o t o n ly a v i ol at i o n o f t h e ap p l i cab l e m ed i cal s t an d ard o f care b u t al s o

t h at t h e p u rp o rt ed v i o l at i o n o r d ev i at io n fro m t he p ro p er s tan d ard o f care i s t h e

p ro x im at e cau s e o f t h e i n ju ry s u s t ai n ed .” 1 8 In d eed

, a m ere s h o wi n g of n eg l i g en ce

1 7 See n o t e 1 2 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t ; Za l vi d

ar

, 2 9 7 Ga. at 6 0 0 (1 ) (“ [W ] e h o ld

t h at O CGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (c) req u i res t h e t ri er of fact i n cas es to wh i ch t h e s t at u t e

ap p li es t o ‘ co n s i d er t he fau l t of al l p ers o n s o r en t i t i es wh o co n t ri b u ted t o th e al l eg ed

i n ju ry o r d am ag es ,’ m ean i n g al l p ers o n s or en ti t ies wh o h av e b reach ed a l eg al d u t y

i n t o r t t h a t i s o wed wi t h res p ect t o t h e p l ai n t iff, t h e b reach o f w h i ch i s a p ro x i m at e

cau s e o f t h e i n

ju ry s u s t ai n ed b y t he pl ai n t i ff. Th at i n cl u des n o t o n l y t h e p l ai n t i ff

h i m s el f an d defen d an t s wi t h l i ab i l i t y t o t h e p l ai n t i ff, b u t al s o ever y o t h er t o r t

f ea s o r

wh o s e co m

m i s s io n o f a t o r t as ag ai n s t th e p l ai n t i ff was a p r o xi m at e cau s e o f h i s

i n ju ry

, reg ard l es s o f w h et h er s u ch t o rt feas or wo u l d hav e act u al l i ab i l i t y i n t o rt t o t h e

p l ai n t i ff.” (em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed )).

1 8 M C G H ea l t h

, In c. v. Ba r t o n

, 2 8 5 Ga. Ap p

. 5 77

, 58 2 (2 ) (6 4 7 SE2 d 8 1 )

(2 0 0 7) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Mo o r e v. S in g h

, 3 2 6 G a. Ap p

. 8 0 5

, 8 0 8 (1 ) (7 5 5

SE2 d 3 1 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ). In p o rt i o n s o f t h ei r bri ef, t h e ap p el l an t s su g ges t t h at t h i s Co u rt

s h o u ld ap p l y a l es s er or d i fferen t s t an d ard t h a n t h e o n e t h at we ap p l y in m ed i cal

m al p ract i ce cas es b ecau s e th is i s n o t a m ed ical -m al p ract i ce cas e ag ai n st a d efen d an t

d o ct o r. Th i s arg u m en t i s a no n s t art er. In Z a l v i d a r

, ou r Su p rem e Co u rt h el d t h at

OCGA § 5 1 -1 2-3 3 (c) “ req ui re[s ] t he t ri er o f fact to co n s i d er t h e ‘ fau l t ’ o f a n o n [-

]p a r t y o n l y wh en t h e n o n [-] p art y i s s ho wn to h a ve co m mi t t ed a t o r t ag ai n s t t h e

p l ai n t i ff t h at was a pro x i m at e cau s e o f hi s i n ju ry .” Za lvi d

ar

, 2 97 Ga. at 59 1 (em

p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). Th e ap p el lan t s al l eg e t h at t h e n o n-p art y d o ct ors co m m i t t ed m ed i cal

m al p ract i ce, an d t h u s , we ap pl y o u r p reced en t g o v ern i n g s u ch cas es

.

9“ wi t h o u t p ro o f o f cau s at i o n is i n s u ffi ci en t t o wi t h s tan d su m m ary ju dg m e n t

. ” 1 9

Ad d i t i o n al l y

, t o m eet th is b u rd en

, t h e p l ai n t i ff m u s t “ u s e e x p e rt t es t i m o ny b ecau s e

t h e qu es t i o n o f wh et h er t h e al l eg ed p ro fes s i o n al n eg li g en ce cau s ed th e p l ai n t i ff’ s

i n ju ry is g en e ral l y o n e fo r s p eci al i zed ex p ert k n o wl ed g e b ey o n d th e k en o f t h e

av erag e l ay

p ers on .” 2 0 Nev ert h el es s

, q u es t i o n s reg ard i ng cau s at io n are “ p ecu l iarl y

q u es ti o n s fo r t h e ju ry

ex cep t i n cl ear, p l ai n , p al p ab l e an d u nd i s p u t ed cas es

. ” 2 1

In Geo rg i a, m ed i cal cau s at i o n m u st b e p ro v ed t o a “ reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f

m ed i cal c e rt ai nt y an d can n o t b e b as ed o n m ere s p ecu l at io n [,] ” 2 2 an d t h e ev i d en ce

m u st p ro v i de m o re t h an a “ m ere o r b are p o ss ib i l i t y th at t h e al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce cau s ed

1 9 Ba r t o n

, 2 8 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 8 2 (2 ) (p u n ct uat i o n o m it t ed ); acco rd Swi n t v. Ma e

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 48 0

, 4 82 (1 ) (7 9 8 S E 2 d 2 3 ) (2 01 7 ); s ee Ed o kp o l o r v. Gr a d

y Mem’l

Ho s p

. Co r p

., 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p. 2 8 5

, 2 8 7 (1 ) (8 1 9 SE2 d 9 2 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ A p l ai nt i ff can n ot

reco v er fo r m ed i cal m al p ract ice, ev en [wh en ] t h ere i s ev i d en ce o f neg li g en ce, u n l es s

t h e p lai n t i ff es t ab l i s h es b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t he ev i den ce t h at t h e n eg l i g en ce ei t h er

p ro x im at el y cau s ed o r co nt ri bu t ed t o cau s e p l ai nt i ff h arm .” (p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed )).

2 0 Za l vi d a r

, 2 97 Ga. at 5 00 ; a cco r d Ed okp o l o r

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 8 7 (1 ); S wi n t

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p . at 4 82 (1 ).

2 1 B a r t o n

, 2 8 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 58 2 (2 ) (p un ct u at io n om i t t ed ); a c c o r d Ad a ms v.

McDo na l d

, 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p . 4 6 4 , 4 6 9 (8 1 6 SE2 d 4 5 4 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

2 2 B a r t o n

, 2 8 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 58 2 (2 ) (p un ct u at io n om i t t ed ); a cco r d Kn i g h t v.

Ro b er t s

, 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p . 5 9 9 , 6 0 4 (1 ) (a) (7 3 0 SE2 d 7 8 ) (2 0 1 2).

10t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i n j ury .” 2 3 In d eed

, t h e ex p ert ’ s t es t i m on y m u s t s h o w as an ev i d en ti ary

t h res ho l d t h at “ t he ex p ert ’ s o pi n i o n reg ard in g cau s at i o n i s b as ed

, at t he l eas t

, o n t h e

d et erm i n at i o n t h at th ere was a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t h e n eg li g en ce cau s ed t h e

i n ju ry .” 2 4 Of co u rs e, a “ reas on ab l e d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y ,” wh i l e an accep t ab l e

m ean s b y w h i c h “ an ex p ert m ay ex p res s t h e co n fi d en ce [h e o r s h e] h as i n t h e

co n cl u s i o n fo rm e d a n d th e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at i t is accu rat e, i s n ot th e r eq u i r ed

s t an d ard .” 2 5 To t he co n t rary

, Geo rg i a l aw req u i res o n l y th at “ an ex p ert s t at e an

o p i n i o n reg ard i n g p ro x i m at e cau s a t i o n i n t erm s s tro n g er t h an t h at o f m ed i cal

p o s s i b i l i ty , i .e., reas o n ab l e m ed i cal p ro b ab i li t y o r reas on ab l e m ed i cal cert ai n t y .” 2 6

2 3 Zwi r en v. Th o mp s o n

, 2 7 6 Ga. 4 98

, 5 0 1 (5 7 8 SE2 d 8 6 2 ) (2 00 3 ); see Mo o r e

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 0 9 (1 ) (“ [A] p lai n t i ff m u st i n t r o d u ce ev i d en ce wh i ch affo rd s a

reas on ab l e b as i s fo r t h e co n cl u s i o n t h at i t is m o re li k el y t han n o t th at t h e co n d u ct o f

t h e d efen d an t w as a cau s e i n fact o f t h e res u l t . A m ere p o s s i b i l it y o f s u ch cau s at i o n

i s n o t en o u g h .” (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed )).

2 4 Zwi r en

, 2 7 6 Ga. at 5 0 1 (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d S wi n t v. Al p h o n s e

, 3 4 8

Ga. Ap p . 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 (2 ) (8 2 0 SE2 d 3 1 2 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

2 5 Zwi r en

, 2 7 6 Ga. at 5 0 1 (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ); s ee M o o r e

, 32 6 Ga. Ap p

. at

8 1 0 (1 ) (h o l d i n g t h at th e ex p ert ’ s “ fai l u re t o s t at e t h at he b el i ev ed [h i s o p i n i on ] t o b e

t h e cas e ‘ t o a reas o n ab le d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y ’ d oes no t req u i re a fi n d i n g t h at

[t he p l ai n t i ff] fai l ed t o p res en t ev i d en ce o f cau s at i o n— [h i s ] ex p ert s were no t req u i red

t o u s e t h es e m ag i c wo rd s i n ren d eri n g t h ei r o p i ni o n s ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted )).

2 6 Zwi r en

, 2 7 6 G a. at 5 0 1 (p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ); s ee Mo o r e

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0 5

at 8 0 9 (1 ) (“ In s o m e i n s t an ces wh ere t h e q u es ti on o f cau sat i on i s o u t s i d e t h e k en o f

11Tu rn i n g t o t h e al l eg ed m ed i cal m al p ract i ce i n t h i s cas e, th e ap p el l an t s

s u b m i t t ed an affi d av i t b y Fei n g o l d

, t h ei r pro p o s ed ex p ert o n Ro n ’ s f o r m o f l u n g

can cer, al l eg i n g t h at cert ai n neg l i gen ce b y Ro n’ s t reat i n g p h y s i ci an s co n t ri b u t ed to

h i s p ai n an d s u fferi n g an d d ecl i n e i n h i s q u al i t y o f l if e

. I n ad d i t i o n to h i s affi d av i t

,

Fei n g o l d i s s u ed a rep o rt reg ard in g h i s rev i ew o f Ro n’ s m ed i cal reco rd s an d t reat m en t

.

An d as t o t h e s t an dard of care fo r p u l m on ary ad en o carci n o m a, Fei n g o ld av erred t h at

“ i t is cu rren t l y ro u t i n e t o s u b m i t s am p l es of n ewl y d iag n o s e d p u l m o n ary

a d e n o carci n om a fo r DNA m ut at i o n an al y s i s.” Acco rd i n g t o Fei n g o l d

, “ EGFRm u tat ed ad en o carci n o m a

. . . are u s u al l y s u s cep t i b l e t o t reat m en t wi t h a n ew cl as s o f

t h erap eu t i c ag en t s n am ed t y ro s i n e k i n as c i n h i bi t o rs (“ TKIs ”) an d t h at p at i en t s wi th

EGFR m u t at i o n s o ft en ex p eri en ce d ram at i c t herap eu t i c res po n s e t o TKI t reat m en t

ch aract eri zed b y res o l u t i o n o r n ear res ol u ti o n o f p u l m on ary p aren ch y m al m as s es an d

ev en res o l u t i o n o f m es t at i c fo ci .” 2 7 He fu rt h er av erred t h at i n 2 0 1 4

, wh en Ro n was

d i ag n o s ed wi t h can cer, “ th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f ad d i n g TKI to ch em ot h erap y was ro u t i n el y

t h e n o rm al ju ro r, t h i s s h o wi ng m u s t be b as ed on ex p ert t es t i m o n y t h at i s su ffi ci en t to

s u p p ort a fi n d i n g t h at t h e d ev i at i o n fro m th e s t an dard o f care t o a reas o nab l e d eg ree

o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y

cau sed t h e i n

ju ry .”).

2 7 (Brack et s o m i t t ed ).

12co n si d

er ed b y o n co l og i s t s an d p u l m o n o l o g i s t s

. . . wh o w e r e t reat i n g p at i en t s wi th

EGFR-m u t at ed l u n g can cers

. ” 2 8

As a cav eat t o h is o p i n i o n , Fei ng o l d n o t ed t h at t h e m ed i cal reco rd s av ai l ab l e

t o h i m in t h i s cas e were i n co m p l et e. 2 9 Bu t a rev i ew o f t he reco rd s t h at were av ai l ab l e

t o h i m at t h at t i m e s u g g es t ed Ro n “ was no t t reat ed wi t h a TKI (i f at al l ) un t i l at l eas t

t wo y ears aft er h i s o ri g i n al d i ag n o si s [,]

. . . b u t in s t ead was t reat ed wi th t r ad i t i o n al

ch em o t h erap y .” So

, F e i n go l d co ul d t el l fro m Ro n ’ s reco rd s t h at a DNA-m u t at i o n

an al y s i s was n o t p erfo rm ed o n h i s t u m or u n t i l Decem b er 2 0 16

— two y ears aft er h i s

d i ag n o s is . An d acco rd i n g t o Fei n g o l d

, wh en t h i s t es ti ng was p erfo rm ed , i t rev eal ed

a t reat ab l e EGFR m

u t at i o n

. Fei ng o ld noted th at

, i n i ti al l y

, h e co u l d n ot det erm i n e fro m

t h e reco rd s av ai l ab l e to h i m wh et h er o r wh en Ro n w as t reat ed wi th T KIs

. Bu t h e l at er

ex p lai n ed t h at Ro n recei v ed TKI t reat m en t s i n l at e 2 0 1 6 o r earl y 2 01 7

.

2 8 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

2 9 Fei n go l d av erred t hat

, at t h e t i m e o f h is rep o rt

, t h e m ed i cal reco rd s av ai l ab l e

t o h i m were i n co m

p l et e

, a n d wh i l e h e recei v ed ad d i t i o n al reco rd s b y t h e t i m e h e

ex ecu t ed h i s affi d av i t

, t h e reco rd s were “ s ti l l i n co m p l et e.” In t h ei r b ri efs

, n ei t h er

p art y p ro v i d es an ex p lan at i o n fo r wh y Fei n g o ld l ack ed acces s t o Ro n ’ s co m p l et e

m ed i cal reco rd s, an d t he ap p el l an t s h av e n o t rai s ed an y arg u m en t s on ap p eal

reg ard i n g t h at i s su e.

13Acco rd i ng t o Fei n g o l d ’ s rep o rt

, Ro n h ad a CT Sca n o n No v em b er 2 5

, 2 0 1 6,

an d aft er recei v i n g ad d i t i o nal m ed i cal reco rd s

, Fei n g o ld was ab l e t o co nfi rm t h at Ro n

recei v ed a TKI t reat m en t i n th e s i x m o n t hs fo ll o wi n g t h a t s can

. Fei ng o l d ’ s rep o rt

fu rt her n o t ed t h at o n M ay 2 4

, 2 0 1 7

, Ro n h ad an o t h er CT scan ; an d w hi l e Fei n g o l d d id

n o t h av e acces s t o a co py o f t h at s can

, i t “ r ep o rt ed l y rev eal ed s i g n i fi can t

i m p ro v em en t [,] wh i ch i mp l i es t h at at s om e p o in t i n th e s i x m o n t h s a f t er t h e CT o f

1 1 / 2 5 / 2 0 16 [,] [Ro n ] was fi n al l y t reat ed wi t h a TKI fo r h is E GFR m u t at ed

ad en ocarci no m a.” 3 0 Bu t t h en

, aft er recei v i n g a rep o rt fro m an o t h er d o ct o r, Fei n g o ld

was ab l e t o c o n f

i r m th at Ro n h ad been t reat ed wi t h a TKI fo l l o wi ng h i s No v em b er

2 5

, 20 1 6 CT scan

, b u t b efo re h i s M ay 2 4, 20 1 7 CT s can

, wh i ch Fei n g o l d s t i l l d i d n ot

h av e a co p y o f fo r h i s reco rd s

. In s um

, Fei n go l d co n cl u d ed t h at “ t h e m o re th an two

y ear d el ay i n t h e id en t i f i c a t i o n an d p ro per t reat m en t o f [Ro n ’ s ] EGFR m u t at i o n

d ep ri v ed h i m o f t h e p o t en t i al b en efi ts o f earl y TKI t reat m en t an d p ro b ab l y

m ean i n g fu l l y co n tri b ut ed to h i s p ai n an d s u fferi n g an d a d ecreas e i n h is q u al i t y o f l i fe

d u ri n g t h e p eri o d aft er No v em b er 2 0 1 4 u n t i l h i s d eat h .” Nev ert h e l e s s

, Fei n g o ld

m ai n t ai n ed t h at h e s t i l l d i d no t h av e a co m p l et e co p y o f Ro n ’ s m ed i cal reco rd s

, an d

3 0 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

14h e res erv ed t h e ri g h t t o “ s u p p l em en t [h i s ] op i ni o n u p o n recei p t o f ad d i t i o n al

m at eri al s .”

In p ro v i d i n g an o pi ni o n i n a m ed i cal -m al p ract i ce cas e, an ex p ert n eed n o t u s e

t h e m ag ic wo rd s “ reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y ,” b u t t h e fact s in t h e reco rd

“ m us t b e s u ffi ci en t t o m eet t h e l eg al s t an d ard em b o d ied i n t h o s e ‘ m ag i c wo rd s .’ ” 3 1

Nev ert h el es s

, i n p res en t i n g an o p i n i o n o n cau s at i o n

, th e ex p ert is “ req u i red t o ex p res s

s o m e b as i s fo r b o t h t h e co n fi d en ce wi t h wh i ch h i s co n cl us i o n i s fo rm ed

, an d t h e

p ro b ab i l i t y t hat h i s co ncl u s io n i s accu rat e.” 3 2 Pu t an o th er way

, t h ere m u s t b e a

“ real i s t ic as s es s m en t o f t h e l i k el i h oo d t hat t h e al l eg ed n eg li g en ce cau s ed t h e i n ju ry

o r d eat h .” 3 3 In deed

, p erh ap s n ot h i n g i n m ed i c i n e i s ab s o l u t el y cert ai n

, b u t “ t h e l aw

3 1 Bea s l ey v. No rt h si d

e H o s p

., In c

., 2 8 9 G a

. A p p

. 6 8 5

, 6 8 9 (6 5 8 SE2 d 2 3 3 )

(2 0 0 8) (fo o t n o t e o m i t ted ); s ee S wi n t

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 48 2 (1 ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at an

ex p ert i n a m ed i cal -m al pract i ce act i o n “ m u s t s t at e h i s o r her o p i n i o n reg ard i n g

p ro x im at e cau sat io n i n t erm s s t ro n g er t h an t h at o f m ed i cal p o ss i b il i t y [,]

. . .[b u t ] [t ] h e

u s e o f t h e m ag i c wo rd s ‘ reas o nab l e d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y ’ i s n o t req u i red

. . . .” (ci t at i o n o m i t ted )).

3 2 S wi n t

, 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 8 3 (1 ) (p un ct u at i o n om i t t ed )); acco r d Zwi r en

, 2 7 6

Ga. at 50 1 ; G a

. C l i n i c

, P

. C

. v. S t o u t

, 3 2 3 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8 7

, 4 9 5 (5 ) (7 4 7 SE2 d 8 3 )

(2 0 1 3); Bea s l ey , 2 8 9 Ga. Ap p . at 6 8 8

.

3 3 An t ho ny v. Ch a mb le s s

, 2 3 1 Ga. Ap p. 6 5 7

, 6 5 9 (1 ) (5 0 0 SE2 d 4 0 2) (1 9 9 8 )

(p u n ct u at i o n om i tt ed ); s ee Zwi r en

, 2 7 6 Ga. at 5 00 -0 1 (“ Us i n g t h e sp eci al i zed

k n o wl ed g e an d t rai n i n g o f h is fi el d

, t h e ex p ert ’ s ro le i s t o p res en t t o t h e ju ry a

real is t i c as ses sm en t o f t h e l ik el i h o o d t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce cau s ed

15i n t en d s th at i f th e p l ai n t i ff’ s m ed i cal ex p ert can no t fo rm an o p in i o n wi t h su ffi ci en t

cert ai n ty s o as to m ak e a m ed i cal ju dg m en t

, t h ere i s n o t h i n g o n t he reco rd wi t h wh i ch

a j u ry can m ak e a d eci s io n wi t h s u ffi ci en t cert ai n t y s o as t o m ak e a l eg al ju d g m en t .” 3 4

Ap p ly i n g t hes e wel l -es t a b l is h ed p ri n ci p l es i n t hi s cas e, we co n cl u d e t h at

Fei n g o l d ’ s m ed i cal t es ti m o n y was s i m p l y t oo v ag u e t o ex p res s t h e k i n d o f reas o n ab l e

d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai nt y o r p ro b ab i l i t y n eces s ary t o es t ab li s h c a u sat i o n fo r a

m ed i cal -m al p ra c t ice cl ai m

. Si g n i fi can t l y

, Fei n g o l d ad m i t s t h at h e n ev er had Ro n ’ s

co m p l et e m ed i cal reco rd s

, an d he res erv ed t h e ri g h t t o su p pl em en t h i s o p i ni o n i f m o re

r e c o rd s were recei v ed

, w h ich s u g g es ts t h at th e o p i n i on ex p res sed i n h i s affi d a v i t

m i g h t n o t ev en b e fi n al

. Fei n go ld al s o av erred th at i n 2 0 1 4

, wh en Ro n was d i ag n o s ed

wi t h l u n g can cer, “ t he p os s i b i l i t y o f ad d i n g T KI t reat m en t s t o ch em o th erap y was

ro u t i nel y co ns i d ered b y o nco l o g i s t s an d p u l m o no l o g i s t s

. . . wh o w ere t reat i n g

p at i en t s wi t h E GFR

- m

u tat ed l u n g can cers .” Need l es s to s ay

, t es t i m o n y t hat can cer

s p eci al i s t s on l y co n s i der ed t h e p o s s i b ility of a dm inisteri n g T KI t reat m en t s in ad d i t i o n

t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i n

j ury .”).

3 4 Bea s l ey

, 2 8 9 Ga. Ap p

. a t 6 8 8 ; acco r d Zwi ren

, 2 7 6 Ga. at 5 0 1 ; Na i k v.

Bo o ker

, 3 0 3 Ga. Ap p. 2 8 2 , 2 85 (6 9 2 SE2 d 8 5 5 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

16t o ch em o t h erap y wh en a pat i en t h as a EGFR m u t at io n d o e s n o t i n d i cat e h o w o ft en

TKI t reat m en t s were act ual l y a d mi n i s t er ed i n s u ch cas es

.

An d wh i l e Fei n go ld ’ s rep o rt i n d i cat ed t h at Ro n recei v ed TKI t reat m en t s i n t h e

s i x m o n t h s fo l l o w i n g h i s No v em b er 2 0 1 6 CT scan

, Fei n g o ld n ev er s aw t he CT s can

t h at was al l eg ed ly t ak en s i x m o n t h s a f t er t he t reat m en t s, an d t h us

, h e h ad n o fi rs t

h an d k n owl ed g e o f wh et h er t h e t reat m en t ev en b en efi t t ed Ro n o r h o w i t was

b en efi ci al

. M o reo ver, Fei n g o ld n ev er sp eci fi ed t h e t y pe o f p ai n an d s u fferi ng t h e TKI

t reat m en t s wo u ld h av e red u ced o r t h e percen t ag e o f l i kel i ho o d t h at t h ey wo u l d h av e

red u ced s u ch p ai n

, 3 5 an d he ce r t a i n l y d i d n o t cl ai m t h at T KI treat m en t s co u l d h av e

p rev en ted Ro n ’ s d eat h . Si m p l y p u t , Fei ng o l d ’ s s um m ary co n cl u s io n t h at t h e “ d el ay

i n th e i d en t i fi cat i o n an d pro per t reat m en t o f [Ro n ’ s ] EGFR m ut at i o n d ep ri v ed h i m o f

3 5 In t h ei r rep l y b ri ef, t h e ap p el l an ts d et ai l t h e p ai n an d s u fferi n g Ro n en d u red

as a res u l t o f ch em o t h erap y an d l at er refer t o i t as t h e “ wro n g t reat m en t ,” b u t Fei n g o ld

n ev er as s ert ed t hat TKI t reat m en t s w e r e a r ep la cemen t fo r ch em o t h erap y

. To t h e

co n trary

, Fei n g o l d av erred t h at can cer s p eci al i st s ro u ti n el y co n s i d ered t he p o s s i b i l i t y

o f a d d i ng s u ch t reat m en t s t o ch em o t h erap y

, an d h e n ev er cl ai m ed th at TKI t reat m en t s

l es s en ed t h e wel l-k no wn ad v ers e effect s o f ch em o t h erap y

. Th e ap p el l an t s al s o cl ai m

t h at Fei n g o l d av erred t h at Ro n’ s m ed ical reco rd s “ rev eal ed s i g n i fi can t i m p ro v em en t ”

s h o rt l y aft er h is d o ct o r’ s b eg an t h e TKI t reat m en t

. Bu t ag ai n

, Fei n g ol d n ev er act u al l y

v i ewed th e CT s can t h at was t ak en aft er Ro n al l eg ed l y recei v ed TKI t reat m en t s an d

av erred o n ly t hat t h e s can r ep o r t ed l y rev eal ed si gn i fi can t i m p ro v em en t. Fei n g o ld

p ro v id ed n o fi rs t-h an d t es ti m o n y reg ard i n g wh et h er t hi s l at es t CT s can rev eal ed an y

i m p ro v em en t at al l

.

17t h e p o t en t i al b en efi t s o f earl y TKI t reat m en t an d p r ob a bl y mea n in g

f u l ly co n t ri b u t ed

t o h i s p ai n an d s ufferi n g an d a d ecreas e i n h i s q u al i t y o f l i fe

. . .” 3 6 fai l s t o “ ex p res s

s o m e b as i s fo r b o t h t h e c o n f i d en ce wi t h wh i ch h i s co n cl us i o n i s fo rm ed

, an d t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s a c c u r a t e

. ” 3 7

3 6 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

3 7 Zwi r en

, 27 6 Ga. at 5 0 1 ( p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) (em ph as is su p p l i ed ); s ee

Ed o kp o l o r

, 3 4 7 Ga. A p p

. at 2 8 7 -8 8 (1 ) (h o l d i ng t h at a m ed i cal ex p ert ’ s co n cl u s i o n,

wi t h li t t le ex p l an at i o n

, t h at t h e h os p i t al ’s n u rs i n g s t aff’ s n eg l i gen t d eci s i o n to

ad m i n is t er m ed i cat io n b y m o u t h rat h er t h an t h ro u g h an NG t u b e p ro x i m at el y cau s ed

t h e p at i en t ’ s d eat h b y as pi rat i on d i d n o t rai s e a g en u i n e i ss u e of m at eri al fact as t o t h e

cau s at i o n req u i rem en t ); Bea s ley

, 2 8 9 Ga. A p p

. at 6 8 9 -9 0 (affi rm i ng t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

g ran t of s u m

m ary ju d g m en t t o t h e d efen dan t h o s p i tal i n a m ed i cal -m al p ract i ce cas e

wh en t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s ex p ert ’ s o pi n i o n i n cl u d ed “ n o as ses s m en t o f t he l i k el i h o o d t h at

t h e ho s p i t al ’ s al l eg ed n eg l ig en ce cau s ed [t h e p lai n t i ff’ s ] i n ju r i e s

, n o b as i s fo r t h e

ex p ert ’ s co n cl u s io n

, an d n o ex p res si o n o f p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t he ex p ert ’ s co n cl u s i o n i s

accu rat e[,] ” an d t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s “ m ed i cal ex p ert co u ld n ot fo rm an o p i n i o n wi th

s u ffi ci en t cert ai nt y s o as t o m ak e a m ed i cal ju d g m en t ”); Reeves v. Ma ha t hr e

, 3 2 8 Ga.

Ap p

. 54 6

, 55 0 (7 5 9 SE2 d 9 2 6 ) (2 0 14 ) (“ Al t h ou g h o n e o f [a] p p el l an t s’ ex p ert s

. . .

o p i n ed gen eral l y t h at t he fai l u re o f [t h e d efen dan t d o ct o r]

, am o n g v ari o u s o t h er

m ed i cal pr of

e ssiona ls, to c or

r e c tly diag n o s e [t h e deceas ed ] an d rel i ev e t he o bs t ru ct i o n

‘ ul t i m a t el y led t o th e d ev el o p m en t o f u ro s ep s i s an d cau s ed h er d eat h ,’ t h i s

g en eral i zed t es t i m o n y was n o t s u ffi ci en t t o creat e a ju ry qu es t io n o n th e i s s u e o f

cau s at i o n .” (p u n ct u at i on an d em p h as i s o m i t t ed )); Ca n n o n v. Jef f r ies

, 2 5 0 Ga. Ap p.

3 7 1

, 37 3 (1 ) (5 51 SE2 d 77 7 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (aff i r m i n g g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju dg m en t fo r

d efen d an t d o ct o r o n cau s at i o n wh en ex p ert t es t i m o n y es t ab l i s h ed t hat t h e d efen d an t ’ s

act i on s “ m ay h av e co n tri b u t ed ” t o t h e d eced en t ’ s i n ju ry an d “ was u n w i l li n g t o s t at e

a p er cen t a g e o

f p r o b a b i l it

y ” (em p h as i s s u p p l ied )); E

s t at e of Pa t ter

s o n v.

Fu l t o n -DeKa l b Ho s

p

. Au t h

. , 23 3 Ga. Ap p. 7 0 6

, 7 0 9 (2 ) (5 0 5 SE2 d 2 32 ) ( 1 9 9 8 )

(h o l d i n g e x p e r t t es t i m o n y t hat t h e d oct o r’ s al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce “ m ay h av e

co n tri b u t ed ” t o t h e d eced en t’ s i n ju ry an d d eat h was i n s u ffi ci en t to es t ab l i s h cau s at i o n

18Th u s, t h e ap p el l an t s fai l ed t o p res en t co m pet en t ev i d en ce to s ho w t h at Ro n ’ s d o ct o rs

were “ t o rt feas o rs ” wh o co m m i tt ed m al pract i ce, an d t hu s

, t he t ri al co u rt di d n o t err in

fi nd i ng t h at t h ey s h o u l d n o t b e i n cl u ded o n t h e verd i c t f o r m fo r ap po rt i o n m en t o f

fau l t

. 3 8

(b ) Fei n g o ld ’s q u a l i

f i ca t i o n s

. Th e p art i es d is ag ree as t o wh et h er Fei n g o l d i s

q u al i f i e d t o t es t i fy as an ex p ert reg ard i n g t h e al l eg ed m ed i cal m al p ract ice. Fu rt h er,

t h e ap p el l an t s ch al l en g e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n di n g t h at t h ei r n o n -p ar ty f a ul t d efen s e fai l s

fo r a m ed i cal -m al pract i ce cl ai m ); Gr a n t h a m v. A m i n

, 2 2 1 G a. Ap p

. 4 5 8

, 45 8 -5 9 (4 7 1

S E2 d 5 2 5) (1 9 9 6) (affi rm i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t h e d efen d an t d o c t o r

wh en t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s ex p ert t es t ifi ed t hat t h e do ct o r’ s al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce “ co u l d h av e

b een a s i g n i fi can t co n t ri b u t in g cau s e” t o t h e p at i en t ’ s d eat h ); s ee a l s o E d o kp ol o r

, 3 4 7

Ga. Ap p

. at 2 8 7 (1 ) (ex p l ai n in g t h at “ [t ] h ere can b e n o reco v ery w h ere t h ere i s n o

s h o wi n g t o an y reas o n ab l e deg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai n t y t h a t t he i n j u ri es co u l d h av e

b een av o i d ed ” (p u n ct u at io n om i t t ed )). Cf

. S wi n t

, 3 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 0 7 (2 ) (rev ers i n g

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m en t t o t h e d efen dan t d oct o r wh en t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s ex p ert t es t i fi ed t h a t

, i n h i s p ro fes si on al o p i n io n, t h ere w as a “ h i g h

p ro b ab i l i t y ” t h at th e d efen d a n t d o ct o r’ s b reach of t h e s t an d ard o f care cau s ed t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s i n

ju ri es ). In i t s rep l y b ri ef, t he ap pel l an t s arg u e t h at L o n g wai v ed h er

arg u m en t t h at Fei ng o l d ’ s t es t i m o n y was u n su p p o rt ed b y “ fact s an d d at a” b ecau s e s h e

rai s es it fo r t h e fi rs t t i m e o n ap p eal

. Bu t t h ey co n ced e t h at Lo ng di d arg u e b el o w t h at

Fei n g o l d ’ s o p i n io n d i d n o t m eet t h e reas o n ab l e-d eg ree-o f-m ed i cal -cert ai n t y

req u i rem en t

. An d as ex p l ai ned s u p r a

, we ag ree wi t h t h e l at t er arg u m en t

. Need l es s to

s ay

, a g ran t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m en t m u s t be affi rm ed “ i f i t is ri g ht fo r an y reas o n,

wh et h er s t at ed o r u n s t at ed in t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er, s o lo n g as t h e m o v an t rai s ed t h e

i s su e i n t h e t ri al co u rt an d t h e n o n m o v a n t h ad a fai r o p p ort u n i t y t o res p o n d.”

Geo rg i a -Pa c., LLC

, 2 9 3 Ga. at 5 0 4 (p u nct u at i o n an d em p h as i s o m i tt ed ).

3 8 S ee s u p r a n o t es 1 2 an d 1 5 & acco m p an y i n g t ex t

.

19b ecau s e an y m ed i cal m al p ract ice res u l ti n g fro m Ro n ’ s l u n g can cer was fo res eeab l e

t o th em

. Bu t b ecau s e we h ol d i n Di v i s i o n (1 ) (a) s u p ra th at Fei n g o ld ’ s t es ti m o n y was

i n s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h th e cau s at i o n el em en t o f a m ed i cal -m al p ract i ce cl ai m ag ai n s t

Ro n ’ s p h y s i ci an s fo r p u rp o s es o f ap p o rt i o n m en t

, we n eed no t s ep arat el y ad dres s t h e

t ri al co u rt ’s o t h er al t ern at i v e b as es fo r g ran ti ng s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o t h e

ap p el l an t s ’ n o n -p art y

fau l t d efen s e.

2

. Nex t

, t he ap p el l a n t s a r g u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g s u m m ary

ju d g m en t o n “ al t ern at i ve carci no g en s .” Bu t

, i n s u b s t an ce, t h ei r arg u m en t s rel at e to

m at t ers t h at were n o t act u al ly r u l ed u p o n b y t he tri al co u rt

, wh i ch l eav es u s wi th

n o t h i n g t o rev i ew.

Becau s e t h ere seem s t o b e s o m e co n fu s io n am o n g t he p art i es as t o wh at ex act l y

t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n wi t h res pect t o al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s

,

i t is h el p fu l t o b ri efl y

rev i ew t he p ro ced u ral h i s t ory o f t h at cl ai m

.

In m o v i n g fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t, L o n g al l eg ed t h at

, d u ri n g di s c o v ery

, t h e

ap p el l an t s at t em

p t ed t o “ as s i g n l i ab i l i ty ” fo r Ro n’s l u n g can cer t o h i s ex p o s u re to

al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s

, s u c h a s s eco n d -h an d s m ok e, rad o n

, an d d i es el ex h au s t

.

Sp eci fi cal l y

, Lo n g cl ai m ed th at “ [i ] n t h e a p p o r t i o nmen t o

f l i a bi li t y

, ” 3 9 th e ap p el l an t s

3 9 (Em p h as i s s u p p l i ed ).

20b ear th e s am e b u rd en t h at s h e d o es i n as s i gn i n g l i ab i li t y

, 4 0 an d t h ey can n o t p ro v e t h at

Ro n h ad ex p o s u re t o an y o f t h os e s u b st an ces

. Th en

, in t h e arg u m en t s ect i on of Lo n g ’ s

s u m m ary -ju d g m en t m o t i on

, s h e c o n t en d ed t h at

, as t o al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s

, t h e

ap p el l an t s “ m

u s t p res en t act u al ev i d en ce t h at a n o n -p a r t y wa s a t f a u l t

. ” 4 1 Bu t Lo n g

al s o arg u ed t h at

, al tern at i v el y

, i f t h e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t hat s h e was no t en t i t l ed to

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, i t s h o u l d e x c l u d e an y ev i d en ce t h at Ro n was ex p o s ed to

al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s u n d er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 (“ Ru l e 4 0 3”). 4 2

In t h ei r r e sponse

, the a

ppe lla nt s ex p l ai n ed t h at Lo n g “ m is tak en l y ” b el i ev ed t h at

t h ey s o u g h t “ t o ‘ as si g n l i ab i l i t y ’ t o t h es e al t ern at i v e ex p os u r e s

. . . .” In deed

, t h ey

cl ai m t h at Lo n g s i m

p l y m i s u n d ers t o o d t h ei r in t en t i o ns

. Nev ert h el es s

, t h e ap p el l an t s

4 0 (Em ph as i s s u p p l i e d )

. Al t h o u g h L o n g s o u g h t s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o an y

at t em p t b y th e ap p el l an t s t o ap p o rt io n fau l t wi t h reg ard t o al tern at i v e carci no g en s

, s h e

h as n ev er i d en ti fi ed t h e s p e c i f i c n o n-p art y o r p art i es t o wh i ch s he b el i ev ed t h e

ap p el l an t s m i g h t seek t o al l o cat e fau l t

. Reg ard l es s

, acco rd i n g t o t he ap p el l an t s

, t h ey

h av e n o i n ten t i o n o f d o i n g s o

.

4 1 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

4 2 S ee OCGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 3 (“ Rel ev an t ev i d en ce m ay b e ex cl ud ed i f i t s pro b at i v e

v al u e i s s u b s t an t i al l y o u twei g h ed b y t h e d an ger of u n fai r preju d ice, co n fu s i o n o f t h e

i s su es

, or m i s l ead i n g t h e ju ry o r b y co n si d erat i on s of u nd u e d el ay

, was t e o f t i m e, o r

n eed les s p res en t at i o n o f cu m u l at i v e ev i d en ce.”). In i t s o rd er, t he t ri al co u rt g ran t ed

Lo n g’ s req u es t fo r su m

m ary ju d g m en t

, s o i t d i d n o t a l s o ad d res s t h is “ al t ern at i ve”

ev i d en t i ary

req u es t o r en g ag e i n an y Ru l e 4 0 3 an al y si s wi t h res p ect t o i t

.

21arg u ed t h at i t was Lo n g ’s b u rd en t o p ro v e cau s at io n as an es s en t i al el em en t o f h er

t o x i c-t o rt cl ai m

. An d aft er fu rt h er d i s cu s s i n g Lo ng ’ s b u rd en of p ro o f, t h e ap p el l an t s

co n ten d ed t h at t h ey are “ en t i tl ed t o s h o w t h e ju ry th ro u g h cr o s s-exa m i na t i o n o f

[ L o n g ’s ] ex p ert s t h at th os e ex pert s fai l ed to i n v es ti g at e an d ap p ro p ri at el y ru l e o u t

al t ern at i v e cau s es o f [Ro n ’ s ] in j u ry an d d eat h .” 4 3 Las tl y

, t h e ap pe lla nt s co n t en d ed t h at

an y ru l in g t o ex cl u d e al l ev i d en ce o f al t ern at i v e carci n o g e n s w a s p rem at u re, as

d i s co v ery was s ti l l o n g o i n g an d res p o n s es t o cert ai n p re-t ri al m o t i o n s were n o t y et

d u e.

In h er rep l y

, d i sreg ard i n g t h e ap p el l an t s ’ cl ari fi cat i o n t h at t h ey were

n o t i n t en d i n g t o p res en t ev i d en ce o f al t ern at i v e carci n og en s fo r p u rp o s es o f as s i g n i n g

l i ab i l i t y t o a n o n-p art y

, L o n g rei t erat ed h er arg u m en t t h at

, as t o al t ern at i v e

carci n o g en s

, th e ap p el l an t s m us t s at i s fy t h e req u i rem en t s o f t h e a ppor tio n m en t s t at u t e

an d p res en t “ act u al ev i d en ce th at [a] n o n -p art y was at fau l t .” Lo n g al s o reas s ert ed h er

4 3 (Em p h as i s s u p p l i ed ). W h i l e t h e ap p el l an t s arg u e t h at t h ey s h o u l d b e al l o wed

t o p res en t ev id en ce of Ro n ’ s ex p o s u re t o al t er na t ive carci n o g en s i n t h ei r cas e-i n -ch i ef

a n d t h ro u gh cro ss -ex am i n at i on

, th ei r res p o n s e t o Lo ng ’ s m o t io n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t i n d i cat ed th at t h ey o nl y i n t en d ed to pres en t ev i d e n c e o f al t ern at i v e

carci n o g en s d u ri n g cross- e xa m ina tion. R e ga rd les s

, t h e tri al co u rt d id n o t ru le o n t h o s e

ev i d en t i ary

m at t ers

.

22cl ai m t h at

, al tern at i v el y

, th e co u rt s h o u l d ex cl u de ev i den ce o f al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s

b ecau s e i t h ad t h e p o t en t i al t o m i s l ead o r p reju d i ce t h e ju ry

.

I n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fo u r-s en ten ce ru l i n g rel at ed t o al t ern at i v e carci n og en s

, i t

ad d res s ed t h e s o l e i s s u e fo r wh i ch Lo n g s o u g h t s u m m ary ju d g m en t

— h er cl ai m t h at

t h e ap p el l a n t s f

a i l ed to pres en t s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s at is fy t h e cau s at i o n

req u i rem en t o f t h e ap p o rt i on m en t s t at u t e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, in i ts s u m m ary ru l i n g

, t h e

co u rt ag reed wi t h Lo n g, ci t i n g o n l y O CGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (c) an d a cas e t hat ad d res s es

a t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g s o n ap p o rt i o n m en t i s s ues

. 4 4 Pres u m ab l y

, b ecau s e t h e co u rt fo u n d

t h at Lo n g wa s en t it l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, i t di d n ot ad d res s h er al t ern at i v e

ev i d en t i ary

arg u m en t s

.

Tu rn i n g t o t h is ap peal

, t he ap p el l an t s ex p l ai n

, y et ag ai n

, t h at th ey “ d o n o t s eek

t o ap p o rt i o n fau l t t o an y n o n [-] p art y wi t h res pect t o t h es e al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s .” 4 5

So

, t h e ap p el l an ts pres en t n o arg u m en t s t h at ch al l en g e t h e tri al co u rt ’ s a p p o rt i o n men t

4 4 S ee Un io n Ca rb i de Co r

p

. , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p . at 5 56 (1 ).

4 5 In t h ei r rep l y b ri ef, t h e ap p el l an ts no t e t h at

, “ [c] i t in g t o t he n o n [-] p art y fau l t

s t at u te (OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 ) an d cas e l aw ap p l y i n g t h at s tat u t e, [Lo n g ] co n v in ced t h e

t ri al co urt t o g ran t ‘ s u m

m ary ju dg m en t o n al t ern at iv e carci n og en s ’ b ecau s e [t h ey ] d id

n o t h av e an ex p ert o p i n i on t h at t h o s e carci n o g en s were cau s at i v e o f [Ro n ’ s ] can cer.”

An d y et ag ai n

, t h e ap pel l an ts m ai n t ai n

, as t h ey h av e t h ro u g h o u t t hi s en ti re l i t i g at i o n,

t h at t h ey “ n ev er s o u g h t t o al l o cat e f a u lt t o a n o n [-] part y w i t h res pect t o an y

al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s .”

23ru l i n g as t o al tern at i v e carci n o g en s

, an d as a res u l t

, t h ey hav e affi rm at i v el y

ab an do n ed an y s u ch ch al l en g e o n ap peal

. 4 6 N ev ert h el es s

, t h e ap p el l an t s m ai n t ai n t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n “ g ran ti n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n ‘ al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s .’ ”

Th en

, t h e ap pel l an ts arg ue t h at t h ey s h o u l d b e perm it t ed t o p r e s e n t ev i d en ce o f

al t ern at iv e p o t en t i al cau s es fo r Ro n ’ s lu n g can cer d uri n g it s cas e-i n -ch i ef an d t h ro u g h

cro s s -ex am i n at i o n o f Lo n g’ s e x p ert s

. Bu t d es pi t e t h e p art i es ’ l en g th y arg u m en t s as

t o t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y of t h i s ev i d en ce fo r p u rp o ses o t h er t h an ap p o rt i o n m en t

, t h ei r

arg u m en t s b ear n o rel at i o n t o t h e o rd er b ei n g ap p eal ed

. 4 7

As we h av e rep eat ed l y ex p l ai n ed

, t h i s i s a Co u rt fo r t h e co rrect i o n o f erro rs o f

l aw, an d “ i f t h e t ri al co urt has n o t ru l ed on an i s s u e, we w i l l n o t ad d res s i t

. ” 4 8 In d eed

,

4 6 S e e C l a c k v

. Ha s n at

, 3 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. 5 0 2

, 5 0 6 (2 ) (b ) (8 4 1 SE2 d 2 1 0 )

(2 0 2 0)(“ [T] h e p l ai n t i ffs d o n ot p res en t an y m ean in g fu l arg um en t i n s u p p o rt o f s u ch

a cl ai m an d h av e t h erefo re ab an d o n ed i t

. ”); Gu n n v. S t a t e

, 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 6 1 5, 6 2 3 -2 4

(3 ) (8 0 4 SE2 d 1 1 8 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (“ [U] n d er t h e ru les o f t hi s Co u rt

, an ap p e l l a n t m u s t

s u p p ort en u m erat i o n s o f erro r wi t h arg u m en t an d ci tat i o n o f au t h o r i t y, an d m ere

co n cl u s o ry s t at em en t s are n o t t h e t y p e o f m ean i n g fu l arg u m en t co n t em p l at ed b y o u r

ru l es

. ” (p u nct uat i o n an d fo o t no t e o m i t t ed )).

4 7 In i ts o p en in g b ri ef, t h e ap p el l an ts ack n o wl ed g e t hat “ [t ] h e o n ly reas o n t h e

t ri al co u rt g av e i n i t s ord er i s t h at [i t ] d i d n o t h av e an ex pert o p i n i on t h at ex p o s u re to

t h es e al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s was ‘ cau sat i v e’ of [Ro n ’ s ] can cer an d th at [i t ] t h erefo re

co u ld n o t m eet t h ei r b u rd en o f p ro v i n g no n [-] p art y fau l t u n d er OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3.”

4 8 Zywi ci el v. Hi s t o r i c W

es t s id e Vi l l

. Pa r t n er

s

, LLC

, 3 1 3 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 7, 4 0 2 (5 )

(7 2 1 SE2 d 6 1 7 ) (2 0 1 1 ) ; s e e Mo r d i ca v. S t a t e

, 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 9

, 1 5 4 -5 5 (2 ) (7 3 6

24wi t h o u t a ru l i n g b y t h e t ri al co u rt o n a p art i cu l ar is su e, t h ere i s “ no t h i n g fo r t h i s Co u rt

t o rev i ew u p o n ap p eal .” 4 9 Here, as e v i d e n ced su p ra

, Lo n g ’ s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t as t o al t ern at i v e carci n o g en s was b as ed so l el y o n prev en t i n g t h e ap p el l an t s

fro m p u rs u i n g an ap p o rt i o n m en t d efen s e, an d t h e ap p el lan t s ack n o w l ed g e t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s s o l e b as is fo r g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t was t h ei r fai lu re t o m eet t h e

cau s at i o n req u i rem en t o f t h e ap p o rt i o n m en t s t at u te. A n d wh i l e t h ey n ev er h ad an y

i n t en t i o n o f s eek i n g t o ap p o rt i o n fau l t wi t h res p ect to al t ern at i v e carci n og en s, t h e t ri al

co u rt g r a n t e d Lo n g ’s m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, w h i ch al l eg ed t h at t h e

ap p el l an t s d id s o

. Si m

p l y p ut

, t h e co urt ’ s ord er i nv o l v ed t h e g r a n t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t o n an ap p or t i o n m en t d efen s e, n o t an y ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s u n rel at ed to

ap p ort i o n m en t, wh i ch m ak es s en s e i f, as th e ap p el l an ts co n t en d

, d i s co v ery i s n o t o v er

SE2 d 1 5 3 ) (2 0 12 ) (ex p l ai ni ng th at i t i s wel l s et t l ed t h at “ t hi s [C] o u rt m ay n o t ad d res s

i s su es o n ap peal wh i ch w ere n ot ad dres sed b y t h e t ri al co u rt

, becau s e t h is [C] o u rt i s

a co u rt fo r t h e co rrect i on o f erro rs an d i t d o es n o t co n si der m at t ers wh ich were n ot

rai s ed an d ru l ed o n b y t h e t r i a l co u rt .” (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t ted )); Mo r m a n -Jo h n s o n v.

Ha t ha wa y , 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p . 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 (1 ) (7 1 8 SE2 d 1 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (s am e).

4 9 Mo r d i ca

, 3 1 9 Ga. A p p

. at 1 5 5 (2 ); s ee Ni ch o l s v. St a t e

, 2 85 Ga. 7 84

, 7 8 5 (2 )

(a) (6 8 3 SE2 d 6 1 0 ) (2 0 09 ) (“ T h e t r i a l c o u rt di d n o t ru l e o n th e is su e wh i ch [t h e

ap p el l an t ] rai s es o n ap p eal

. In t h e ab s en ce o f a n y r u l i ng b y t h e t ri al co u rt o n t h i s

i s su e, t h ere i s n o t h i n g fo r t h i s Co u rt t o rev i ew.” (p u nct u at i o n o m it t ed )); W i l l i n g h a m

v. W i l li n g h a m

, 2 6 1 Ga. 6 7 4

, 6 74 (2 ) (4 1 0 SE2 d 9 8 ) (1 9 91 ) (“ [S] in ce ap p el l ee s ecu red

n o ru li n g b y

t h e t ri al co u rt o n t h i s q u es ti o n

, n ot h i n g i s p res en t ed fo r o u r rev i ew.”).

25an d res p o n s es t o m o t i on s i n l im i n e are n ot y et d u e. 5 0 Th u s

, t h e ap p el l an t s ’ cl ai m s o f

5 0 Ap p o rt i o n m en t is an affi rm at i v e d efen s e t h at i s s ub ject t o s u m

m ary

ju d g m en t

. S

ee Cl u r e

, 3 0 2 Ga. at 5 8 (1 ) (b ) (rev ers i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f p art i al

s u m m ary ju d g m en t as to ap p o rt i o n m en t of fau l t ); Gu z ma n v. Li n k

, 3 5 4 Ga. A p p

. 4 6 3,

4 6 4 n

. 3 (8 4 1 SE2 d 2 0 3 ) (2 0 2 0) (ch aract eri zi ng a part y ’ s ap p o rt i o n m en t req u es t as an

affi rm at i v e d efen s e); B r o w n v

. Tu cker

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 7 04

, 7 1 6 (4 ) (7 8 8 SE2 d 8 1 0 )

(2 0 1 6) (“ T h e affi rm at i v e d efen s e t h at t h e j u ry s h o u l d ap p o rt io n fau l t ag ai ns t s o m eo n e

o t h er t h an t h e d efen d an t i s n o d i fferen t an al y ti cal l y fro m t he d efen s e o f co n tri b u t o ry

n eg li g en ce. On ce th e p l ai n t i ff es t ab l i s h es h er p ri m a faci e cas e, t h e d efen dan t s eek i n g

t o es t ab l i s h t h at s o m eo n e el s e bears res p o n s i b i l i t y fo r t h e dam ag es h as t h e b u rd en o f

p ro v in g th at d efen s e.”); Levi n e v. S u n t r u st Ro b i n so n Hu mp h r ey

, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 8,

2 7 1 (1 ) (7 40 SE2 d 67 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (r e v ers i n g t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t wi th

res p ect to an ap po rt i on m en t cl ai m ). On t h e o t h er h an d

, p u rel y ev id en t i ary m at t ers

,

s u ch as wh et h er t h e al tern at i v e-carci n o gen s ev i d en ce i s ad m i s s ib l e fo r p u rp o s es

u n rel at ed t o ap p o rt i o n m en t

, are g en eral l y h an d l ed t h ro u gh a m o t i on i n l i m i n e o r at

t ri al

. In d eed

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as ex p lai n ed t h at “ [a] m o t i on i n l i m i n e i s a p ret ri al

m et h o d o f det erm i n i n g t h e ad m i s s ib i l i t y o f ev i d en ce, as a p art y m ay s ecu re a p ret ri al

ru l i n g o n t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f ev i d en ce o r a ru l i n g pro h i bi t i n g an y referen ce t o cert ai n

ev i d en ce u n t i l i t s ad m i s s i bi li t y can b e as s es s e d i n t h e co n t ex t o f th e t ri al as i t

u n fo ld s .” An d

rews v. Wi l ba n ks

, 2 6 5 Ga. 5 5 5

, 5 5 6 (4 5 8 SE2 d 8 1 7 ) (1 9 9 5 ); a cco r d

Dep ’t of Tr a n sp

. v. W

a l l a ce En t er

s

, 2 3 4 Ga. Ap p

. 1

, 5 ( 6 ) ( 5 0 5 SE2 d 5 4 9 ) (1 9 9 8 );

s ee Mi l l er

v. Lyn ch , 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p . 3 6 1 , 3 6 8 (3 ) (8 3 0 SE2 d 7 4 9 ) (2 0 19 ) (“ If t h e t ri al

co u rt d eci d es t o ru l e o n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f ev i d en ce p ri o r t o t ri al

, t h e co urt ’ s

d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e ad m i ss i b i l i t y i s s i m i l ar t o a p rel i m i nary ru l in g o n ev i d en ce at a

p ret ri al co nferen ce an d i t co nt ro l s t h e s u b seq u e n t co u rs e o f act i o n .” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )); M

a r k v. Ag er t er

, 33 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 9, 87 9 (7 7 5 SE2 d 2 3 5 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (“ Becau s e

a m ot i o n i n l i m i n e i s a pret ri al d et erm i n at i o n o f t he ad m i s s i b il i ty o f ev i den ce, t h e

g ran t o f a m o t io n i n l i m i n e ex cl u di n g e v i d e n c e i s a ju di ci al p o wer wh i ch m u s t b e

ex erci s ed wi t h g reat care.”).

26erro r rel at e t o p u rel y ev i d en t i ary m at t ers th at h av e n o t y et b een res ol v ed b y t h e t ri al

co u rt

, an d u n d er s uch ci rcu m st an ces

, t h ey p res en t n o erro r fo r t h i s Co urt to rev i ew. 5 1

Fo r al l th es e reas o ns

, we affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s gran t o f p a r t i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o Lo n g

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ri ckma n a n d

Br o wn , JJ., co n cu r

.

5 1 S ee s u p r a n o t es 4 8 -4 9 & acco m p an y i n g t ex t

.

27