THI RD DI VI SI ON

DOYLE, P. J.

, REESE, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE PHI PPS

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

A pr i l 29, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 2 A0 32 5 . M ILLER v . POLK et al

.

P H I P P S , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e.

In t h i s act i o n f

o r n eg l i g en ce an d rel at ed cl ai m s

, p l ai n t i ff Cal v i n M i l l er,

i n d i v i d u al l y an d as th e ad m i n i s t rat o r o f t h e es t at e o f h i s d eceas ed wi fe J erl i n e M i l l er,

ap p eal s fro m th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er g ran ti n g su m m ary ju dg m en t t o d efen d an t s M arcu s

Po l k

, M

. D

., an d An es t h es i a Co n s u l t an t s o f Geo rg ia, LLC d / b / a Oracl e An es t h es i a o f

Geo rg i a (“ Oracl e,” an d

, w it h Dr. Po l k, t h e “ Oracl e D e f e n d an t s ”). 1 Cal v i n rai s es

1 Dr. Po l k i s t h e so l e o wn er an d m an ag i n g m em b er o f Oracl e. Th e reco rd al s o

co n tai n s referen ces t o an en t i t y n am ed “ O racl e An es th es i a o f Geo rg i a, LLC.” Du ri n g

o ral arg u m en t

, wh en as k ed t o cl ari fy t he r e la tio ns h ip bet ween An es t h es ia Co ns u l t an t s

o f Geo rg i a an d Oracl e A n es t h es i a o f G e o r g i a, co u n s el fo r t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s

res p o n d ed

, “ [I] t ’ s a d / b / a ; Dr. Po l k o wn s b o t h co m pan i es

, ” w h i ch “ d o t h e s am e

t h i n g .” N o t ab l y

, co u n s el d i d n o t s ug g es t t hat an y di s t i n ct i o n s b et ween t h e en t i t i es are

rel ev an t t o th is ap p eal

, an d we t h erefo re d o n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b et ween t h e en t i t i es i n t h i s

o p i n i o n

. To t h e ex ten t t h at an y d i s t i n ct i o n s b e t ween an y en t i t i es ad d res sed i n (o r

rel at ed t o t h e ev en t s gi vi n g ri si n g to ) t h i s ap p eal are rel ev an t t o an y cl ai m s rai s ed bys ev eral ch al l en g es t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s s u m m ary ju d g m en t ru l in g s

. Fo r t he reas o n s t h at

fo l l o w

, we rev ers e t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary ju dg m en t on Cal v i n ’ s cl ai m s fo r n eg l i g en t

cred en t i al i n g

, pu n i t i v e d am ag es

, an d at t o rn ey fees ; o t h erwi s e affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ju d g m en t ; an d rem an d t h e c a s e t o t he t ri al co urt fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s co n s i s t en t

wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

Th i s act i o n co n cern s J erl i n e’ s d eat h o n Au g u s t 2 9

, 2 0 19

, fo l l o wi n g

co m p l icat i o n s sh e ex p eri en ced t h e d ay b efo re d u ri n g a v i s i t t o Pai n Care Cen t er o f

Geo rg i a (“ Pai n Care”) (wh i ch i s n o t a p art y t o t h i s act i o n ), fo r a p ro ced u re t o al l ev i at e

b ack p ai n

. Cal vi n ’ s cl ai m s l arg el y cen t er o n t h e act i o ns o f cert i fi ed reg i s t ered n u rs e

an es t h et i s t (“ CRNA”) Cy n th i a H am m

, w h o was o n t h e m ed i cal t eam th at t reat ed

J erl in e at Pai n Care o n t h e d ay i n q u es t i o n , b u t al s o i s n o t a p art y t o t h i s act i o n

.

In 2 0 0 4

, 2 0 1 4

, an d 2 0 1 7

, Ham m w as t he s u bject o f d i s ci p l i n ary act io n s b efo re

t h e Al ab am a Bo ard o f Nu rs in g (t h e “ A l ab am a Bo ard ”). In t h e 2 0 04 p ro ceed i n g

, t h e

Al ab am a Bo ard fo un d t hat : (i ) Ham m fa i l e d t o d i s cl o se a 1 9 9 8 arres t fo r d ri v i n g

u n d er th e i n fl u en ce (“ DUI”) wh en sh e ap p li ed t o ren ew her Al ab am a n urs i n g l i cen s e

Cal v in th at rem ai n p en di n g fo ll o wi n g o ur deci s i o n h erei n

, th e p art i es s h o u l d rai s e an y

s u ch is s u es b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt o n rem an d

.

2i n 1 9 9 8 2 ; an d (i i ) a 2 0 0 4 pre-em p l oy m en t d ru g s creen r e t u r n ed p o s it i ve res u l t s fo r

co cai n e. Th e p art i es en t ered i n t o a co n s en t o r d e r u nd er wh i ch

, as rel ev an t h ere,

Ham m was p l aced o n p ro b at i on fo r 2 4 m on t h s

. Sh e s u cces s fu l ly co m p l et ed t h e t erm s

o f h er p ro b at i on i n 2 0 0 6

.

In t h e 2014 p ro ceed i n g

, t h e Al ab am a Bo ard fo u n d th at

, i n 2 0 13

, H am m p l ead ed

g u i l t y t o DUI an d fo l l o wi n g t o o cl o s el y an d en t ered a n o l o c o n t en d ere p l ea to

cri m i n al tres pas s

, as a res ul t o f wh i ch s he was d en i ed rei n s t at em en t o f h er Lo u i s i an a

n u rs i n g l i cen s e i n 2 0 13 . Th e p art i es ag ai n en t ered i n to a co n s en t o rd er u n d er wh i ch

Ha m m a g a i n was p l aced o n p ro b at i o n fo r 2 4 m o n th s

. Th e t erm s o f h er p ro b at i o n

co n tai n ed s ev eral req u irem en ts rega r ding pr e sc r iption dr u g use

, a s w e l l as s u p erv i s i o n

o f h er wo rk an d rel at ed rep o rt i n g req u i rem en t s. It ap p ear s t h a t H am m was s t i l l o n

p ro b at i o n wh en t h e 2 0 1 7 p ro ceed i n g t o o k p l ace.

In th e 2 0 1 7 p ro ceed i n g

, t h e A l ab am a Bo ard fo u n d th at Ham m h ad v i o l at ed t h e

t erm s o f h er 2 0 14 co n s en t o rd er b y : (i ) o b t ai n in g p r e s c r i p t i o n s fro m d o ct o rs n ot

i d en t i fi ed as h er pri m ary d o ct o r; (i i ) t es t i n g p os i t i v e fo r a d ru g t h at s h e was n ot

p res cri bed ; an d (i i i ) fai li n g t o co m p l y wi th s ev eral wo rk s u p erv i s i o n an d rep o rt i n g

2 Acco rd i n g t o t h e Al ab am a Bo ard , Ham m was co n v i ct ed o f t h e DUI o ffen s e

t h e d ay aft er s h e s u b m it ted h er 1 9 9 8 ren ewal ap p l i cat i on

.

3req u i rem en t s

. T h e p art ies ag ai n en tered i n t o a co n s en t o rd er un d er wh i ch H am m was

p l aced o n p ro b at i o n fo r 10 m o nt h s

. It ap pears t h at Ham m s u cces s fu l l y co m

p l et ed t h e

t erm s o f h er 2 0 1 7 p ro b at i o n i n M arch 2 0 18

.

As a res u l t of t he 2 0 0 4 an d 2 0 1 4 Al ab am a Bo ard p ro ceed i ng s

, Ham m al s o was

t h e s u b ject o f di s ci p l i n ary act i on s b efo re t h e Geo rg i a Bo ard o f Nu rs i ng i n 2 0 0 6 an d

2 0 1 6

. In t h e 2 0 0 6 Geo rg i a p ro ceed i n g

, Ham m en t ered i n t o a co n sen t o rd er i n wh i ch

s h e was p u b l ical l y rep ri m an d ed

. An d i n t h e 2 01 6 Geo rg ia p ro ceed i n g, Ham m ag ai n

en t ered in t o a co n sen t o rd er p u rs u an t to wh ich s h e was pl aced o n p ro b at i o n, s u b ject

t o a n um b er of term s an d co n d i t i o n s

. Sh e s u cces s fu l l y co m p let ed th e t erm s o f t h a t

p ro b at i o n o n Ap ri l 1 8, 2 01 9 , ap p ro xi m at el y fo u r m o nt h s b efo re J erl i n e’ s d eat h

.

Fro m 2 0 1 2 t o 2 0 2 0

, Oracl e p ro v i d ed an es t h es i o l og i s ts an d CRNAs t o Pai n

Care p u r s u an t t o a Pro fes s i o n al Serv i ces Ag reem en t

. Th e Pro fes s i o n al Serv i ces

Ag reem en t ex pl ici t l y p ro v i d es th at t h e an es t h es i ol o g i s t s an d CRNAs wh o s e s erv i ces

were t o b e p ro v i ded u n d er t h e ag reem en t wo u l d b e act i ng as “ i n d e p e n d en t

co n tract or[s ] .” Ham

m fi rs t b eg an wo rk i n g as a CRNA fo r Oracl e i n 2 01 5

. Bet ween

2 0 1 5 an d 2 0 1 9

, Oracl e as s i g n ed Ham m t o p ro v i d e an es t h es ia serv i ces t o Pai n Care.

4Th e co n t ract b et ween Ham m an d Oracl e i n effect i n Au g us t 2 0 1 9 d es ig nat ed Ham m

as an “ i n d ep en den t co n t ract o r” o f Oracl e. 3

On Au g u s t 2 8

, 2 0 1 9

, J erl i n e was s ch ed ul ed t o u n derg o a p ro ced u re at Pai n

Care i n wh i ch Vi n cen t Gal an

, M .D

. (t h e p res id en t o f Pai n Care, wh o al s o i s n o t a

p art y t o t h is act io n ), was t o i n s ert a s p a c e r i n h er s pi n e to al l ev i at e b ack p ai n

. Th e

m ed i cal t eam fo r Jerl i n e’ s p ro ced u re in cl u d ed Ham m (wh o was t o a d m i n i s t er

an es t h es i a), an o t her n urs e, an d o n e o r m o re o t h er as s i s t an t s

. In an ti ci p at i o n o f t h e

p ro c e d u re, J erl i n e was ad m i ni s t ered a s ed at iv e (t o rel ax or cal m her) an d a

p ro p hy lact ic an ti b i o t i c.

As s h e w a s l y i n g face d o wn o n t h e t ab le o n wh i ch t he p ro ced u re was t o t ak e

p l ace, b efo re an y an es t h es i a w as ad m i n i s t ered

, J erl in e b eg an co u g hi n g an d h ad

t ro u b l e b reat h i n g

. Aft er t h e m ed i cal t eam t u rn ed J erl i ne o ver o n t o h e r b ack

, s h e

s t op p ed b reat h in g , an d CPR w as ad m in i st ered

. Becau s e h er h eart rat e was s l o wi n g,

s h e w as ad m i n i s t ered at ro pi n e, aft er wh ich h er h eart rat e i n creas ed s l i g ht ly ; s h e al s o

was ad m i n is t ered ep i nep h ri n e d u e t o p o s si b l e b ro n ch o s pas m s

. Al s o d u ri n g t h i s t i m e,

3 A p ri o r co n t ract b et ween Ham m an d Oracl e i n effect bet ween M ay 2 0 1 7 an d

M ay 2 0 1 8 id en t ifi ed Ham m as an “ em

p l o y ee.” (Cap i t al izat i o n o m i tt ed .) I t i s

u n d i s p u t ed t h at t h e 2 0 1 7 -2 0 18 co n t ract was n o t i n effect at th e t i m e o f J erl i n e’ s

Au g u s t 2 0 1 9 v i s i t t o Pai n Care.

5Ham

m in s ert ed a l ary n g eal m as k ai rway to hel p J erl i n e b reat h e. Em erg en cy pers o n n el

ev en tu al l y were s u m

m o ned an d t ran s p o rt ed J erl in e t o a h o s p i t al

. Sh e d i e d a t t h e

h o s p it al t h e n ex t d ay o f acu t e res p i rat o ry fai l u re d ue t o card io res p i rat o ry arres t

.

In Au g u s t 2 02 0 (b efo re t h e cu rre n t c as e b eg an ), Cal vi n

, i n d i vi d ual l y an d as

ad m i n is t rat o r o f J erl in e’ s es t at e, en t ered i n t o a “ Set tl em en t Ag reem en t an d Gen eral

Rel eas e o f Al l Cl ai m s ” wi t h Dr. Gal an

, Ham m

, an d Pai n C a re (co l l ect i v el y

, t h e

“ Rel eas ees ”), as wel l as s ev eral i n s u rers

. Pu rs u an t t o t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t

, t h e

Rel eas ees an d i n s u rers ag reed t o p ay cert a i n s u m s t o Cal v in “ i n fu l l s et t l em en t an d

d i s ch arg e o f al l cl ai m s ag ai n st Rel eas ees wh i ch are, o r m i g h t hav e b een

, rel at ed t o ”

J erl in e’ s d eat h

. In Oct o b er 2 0 2 0

, Cal v i n (ag ai n i n d iv i d u al ly an d as ad m i ni s t rat o r o f

J erl in e’ s es t at e) su ed t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s (al on g wi t h a th ird d efen d an t wh o i s n ot

a part y t o t h i s ap p eal ) fo r: (i ) n eg l i g en t s el ect i on

, h i ri n g

, t rai n i n g

, cred en t i al i n g,

ret en t i o n

, an d s u p erv i s i o n o f Ham m (al l d e f

en d an ts ); (i i) p ro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce

( m e dical m al p ract i ce) (t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s); (i i i ) i m p u t ed / v i cari ous lia

bility f or the

al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce of Pai n Care’ s m ed i cal s t af f

, i n cl u d i n g Ham

m (t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s ); (i v ) co rp o rat e n eg l i g en ce (al l d efen d an t s ); (v ) n eg l i g en ce p er s e, b as ed

o n al l eg ed reg u l at o r y vi o l at io ns (t h e Oracl e Defen d an ts ); (v i ) n eg li g en t fai l u re to

6rep o rt Ham

m ’ s al l eg ed m i s co n d u ct (t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s ); (v i i ) p u n it i v e d am ag es

(al l d efen d an t s ); an d (v i ii ) at t o rn ey fees an d ex p en s es o f l i t i g at io n (al l d efen d an t s ).

Th e Oracl e Defen d an t s m o v ed fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t he cl a i m s ag ai n s t

t h em

. Th ey arg u ed

, i n rel ev an t p art

, t h at Cal v i n ’ s v i c a r i o u s l i ab i l i t y cl ai m s fai l

b ecau s e Ham

m w as an i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r of O racl e o r, al t ern at i v el y

, are b arred

b y t h e Set t l em en t Ag reem en t

. Th ey fu rt h er m ai n t ai ned t h at : (i ) becau s e n ei t h er

Dr. Po l k n o r Oracl e was a s u perv i s i n g p h y s i ci an d u ri n g J erl in e’ s Au g us t 2 0 1 9 v i s i t

t o Pai n Care, n ei t her can b e l i ab l e fo r an y act s o r o m i s s i o ns co m

m i t t ed at t h at t i m e;

(i i) t h ere i s n o ev id en ce t hat th e Oracl e D efen dan t s n eg l i gen t l y cred en t i al ed

, h i red

,

o r ret ai n ed Ham

m ; an d (i i i ) Cal v i n ’ s m al pract ice cl ai m fai l s becau s e Dr. Po l k h ad n o

d o ct o r-p at ien t rel at i o n s h i p wi t h J erl i n e.

Th e t ri al co u rt g ran ted t h e O racl e D efen dan t s ’ m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

o n th e fo l l o wi n g g ro u n d s : (i ) t h e Set t l em en t Ag reem en t b ars Cal vi n ’ s cl ai m s ag ai n s t

t h e Oracl e D efen d an ts fo r v i cari o u s

, co rp orat e, an d i m p u t ed l i ab i l i t y ; (i i ) reg ard l es s

,

t h o s e cl ai m s al s o fai l b ecau s e Ham m was an i n d ep en d en t co n t ract or o f Oracl e wh en

J erl in e w as t reat ed at Pai n Care i n Au g u s t 2 0 19 ; (i i i ) Cal v in ’ s cl ai m fo r p ro fes s i o n al

n eg li g en ce ag ai ns t Dr. Po l k fai l s b ecau s e D r. Po l k had n o d o ct o r-p at i en t rel at i o n s h ip

wi t h J erl i n e; (i v ) Cal v i n ’ s cl ai m fo r neg l i g en t cred en t i al i ng fai l s b ecau s e th ere i s n o

7ev i d en ce t h at Ham m was u n qu al i fi ed t o p ro vi d e m ed ical ca r e i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 9;

(v ) Cal v i n ’ s n eg li g en t h i ri n g an d re t e n t i o n c l ai m s fai l b ecau s e t h ere i s n o ev i d en ce

t h at an y act s or o m i s s i on s b y Ham m cau s ed J erl i n e’ s d eat h ; an d (v i ) Cal v i n ’ s cl ai m s

fo r p un i t i v e d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees wi l l n o t li e ab s en t a v i a b l e u n derl y i n g,

s u b s t an t i ve cl ai m

. Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

W e rev i ew d e no v o a gran t o r d en i al o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, v i e w i n g t h e

ev i d en ce an d a l l r e a s o n a bl e co n cl u s i o ns an d in feren ces d rawn fro m i t i n t h e l i g ht

m o st fav o rab l e t o th e n o n m o van t

. Ci t y o f S t

. Ma r ys v. Reed

, 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. 50 8

, 5 0 8

-

5 0 9 (8 1 6 SE2 d 4 71 ) (2 0 1 8 ). Su m m ary ju dg m en t i s p ro per wh en t h ere i s no g en u i n e

i s su e o f m at eri al fact an d t h e m o v an t i s en t it l ed t o ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f law. Id

. at

5 0 8 ; s ee OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). “ [T] h e b u rd en o n t he m o v i n g part y m ay b e d i s ch arg ed

b y p o i n t i ng o u t by referen ce t o t h e affi d av i t s

, d ep o s i t i o n s an d o t her d o cu m en t s i n t h e

reco rd t h at t h ere i s an ab s en ce o f ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt t h e n o nm o v i n g p art y ’ s cas e.”

El l i so n v. Bu r

g er Ki n g Co r

p

. , 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1 4

, 8 1 9 (3 ) (a) (6 7 0 SE2 d 4 6 9 ) (2 0 0 8 )

(ci t at i o n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ); s ee OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). If t h e m ov an t s m eet t h i s

b u rd en

, t h e n o n m o v an t “ can n o t re s t o n [ h i s ] p l ead in g s

, b u t rat h er m us t p o i n t to

s p eci fi c ev i d en ce gi v i n g ri s e t o a tri ab l e i s s u e.” E ll i s o n

, 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 9 (3 ) (a)

(ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ); s ee OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (e).

81

. W e fi rs t ad d res s Cal v in ’ s ch al l en g e t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g th at Ham m was

an i n dep en d en t co n t ract o r (an d n o t an em p lo y ee) o f Oracl e, as res o l u ti o n o f t h i s i s s u e

wi l l i m p act o th er cl ai m s rai s ed b y Cal v in o n ap peal

. “ In g en eral

, an em p l o y er i s n ot

res p o n s i b l e fo r t h e t o rt s o f i ts in d ep en d en t co n t ract o r.” W h i t aker Fa r ms v. Fi t

z g er a ld

Fr u it Fa rms

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 8 1

, 3 8 5 (1 ) (8 1 9 SE2 d 6 6 6 ) (2 01 8 ); see OCGA § 5 1 -2 -4

(“ An em p l o y er g en eral l y i s n o t res p o n s i b l e fo r t o rt s co m m i t t ed b y h i s em

pl o y ee wh en

t h e em p l o y ee ex erci s es an in d ep en d en t b u s in es s an d i n it i s n o t su b ject t o t h e

i m m ed i at e d i rect i o n an d co n t ro l o f t h e em p l o y er.”); acco rd Lo

p ez v. El Pa l ma r Ta xi

,

2 9 7 Ga. Ap p . 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 (2 ) (6 76 SE2 d 4 6 0 ) (2 0 0 9 ). W h ere, as h ere, “ t he co n t ract o f

em pl o y m en t cl earl y d en o m i n a t es t h e o t h er p art y as an in d ep en d en t co n t ract o r, t h at

rel at i o n s h i p i s p res um ed t o b e t ru e” u n l es s t h e ev i d en ce s ho ws th at th e em p l o y er

as s u m ed “ t h e ri gh t t o co n t ro l t h e t i m e, m an n er an d m et h od o f ex ecu t i n g th e wo rk .”

Lo p ez

, 2 9 7 Ga. A p p

. at 1 2 3 (2 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). On ap p eal

, Cal v in

rel i es o n t wo t heo ri es u n der w h i ch

, he cl ai m s

, Ham m m ay b e t reat ed as an em p l o y ee

o f Oracl e: rat i fi cat i o n an d v i o l at i o n o f a d u t y i m p o sed b y ex p res s co n t r a c t

. Nei t h er

ap p li es h ere.

(a) An ex cep t i on to t he g en eral ru l e t h at an em p l o y er is n o t res p o n si bl e fo r an

i n d ep en den t co n tract o r’ s t ort s ex i s t s “ if t h e em p l o y er rat i fi es t h e u n au t h o ri zed wro n g

9o f t h e i n d ep en den t co n tract o r.” W h i t aker Fa rms

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 8 5 (1 ); s ee OCGA

§ 51 -2 -5 (6 ). Cal vi n co n t en d s t h at t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s m ay b e h el d l i ab l e fo r

Ham m ’ s al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce b ecau se t h ey rat i fi ed her w ro n g fu l act s b y co n t i n u i n g to

em pl o y her an d al l o w i ng h er to p ro vi d e m ed i cal t reat m en t aft er l earn i n g t h at s h e h ad

v i o l at ed h er p ro bat i o n an d en g ag ed i n “ d em o n s t rab l e n eg l i g en ce,” ap p aren tl y i n t h e

care o f an o t h er Pai n Care pat i en t

. Cal v i n has n o t, h o wev er, i d en t ifi ed an y reco rd

ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch a reas o n ab l e ju ry co u l d fi n d t h at t h e Oracl e D efen dan t s rat i fi ed

“ t h e u n a u t h o r i

z ed wr o n g ” at i s s u e here

— n am el y

, Ham m ’ s al l eg ed l y n eg l i g en t

p ro v is i o n o f m ed i cal care t o J erl i n e i n Au g u st 2 0 1 9

— as al l o f th e a c t s a l l e g e d to

h av e b een “ rat i fi ed ” occu rred b efo re t h en

. W h i t a ker Fa r ms

, 3 4 7 G a. Ap p

. at 3 8 5 (1 )

(em p h as i s s u p pl i ed ); s ee al so M ed l ey v. Bo o mer

s h i n e P o n t i a c-GMC Tr u ck

, 2 1 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 79 5

, 7 9 7 (4 ) (4 4 9 SE2 d 1 28 ) (1 9 9 4 ) (“ W h ere t h e p ri n ci p al rat i fi es t he t or t o f t h e

a g e n t a f t e r i t s co mmi s s i on

, t h e l i ab i l i ty o f th e p ri nci p al i s th e s am e as i f h e h ad

co m m an d ed i t

, p ro v i d ed t he rat i fi cat i o n i s h ad wi t h fu l l kn o wl ed g e on t he p art o f t h e

p ri n ci p al o f t h e m an n er i n wh i ch t h e t o r t was co m m i tt ed

. ”) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ; em

p h as es s u p p l i ed ). Th i s t h eo ry o f v icari o u s l i ab i l i t y t h erefo re fai l s

.

(b ) Cal v i n a l t ern at iv el y m ai n t ai n s t h at t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s m ay b e h el d

l i ab l e fo r Ham

m ’ s al l eg ed n eg li g en ce o n t h e g ro u n d t h at s u ch n eg l i g en ce v i o l at ed a

10d u t y im

p o s ed b y ex p res s co nt ract

, i .e., t h e Pro fes s i o n al Serv i ces Ag reem en t b et ween

Pai n Care a n d Or a c l e

. See OCGA § 5 1 -2 -5 (3 ) (“ An em p l o y er i s l i ab le fo r t h e

n eg li g en ce o f a co n t ract o r

. . . [i ] f t h e wro ng fu l act is t he vi o l at i o n o f a d ut y i m p o s ed

b y ex p res s co nt ract u p o n t h e em p l o y er

. . . .”). Un d er t h is t h e o r y o f r e co v ery

,

h o wev er, “ t h e co n t ract u al d u t i es u n d e r w h i ch t h e em p l o y er w o u ld b e l i ab l e fo r t h e

act s o f t h e i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r can n o t b e en fo rced b y o n e n ot a p art y t o t h e

co n tract

. ” Ki d

d v

. D e n t sp l y In t l

. , 2 7 8 Ga. Ap p

. 3 4 6

, 3 5 0 (2 ) (6 2 9 SE2 d 5 8) (2 0 0 6 )

(ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t t ed ). Nei t h er C a l v i n no r J erl i n e was a p art y t o t h e

Pro fes s i on al Serv i ces Ag reem en t

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, t h i s th eo ry o f v i cari o u s l i ab i l i t y

s i m i l arl y fai l s.

(c) W i t h o u t ex p l an at i on

, Cal v i n al s o ci t es OCGA § 5 1 -2 -5 (2 ), wh i ch p ro v i d es

,

“ An em pl o y er i s l i ab l e fo r th e n eg l i g en ce o f a co n t ract o r

. . . [i ]f

, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

em pl o y er’ s p rev i o u s k n owl ed g e an d ex p eri en ce, th e wo rk t o b e d o ne i s i n i t s n at u re

d an gero us t o o t h e r s h o wev er carefu l l y p erfo rm ed

. . . .” Bu t h e el ab o rat es n o

arg u m en t as t o wh et h er (o r, i f so

, w h y or h o w) t hat p ro v i s i o n ap p l i es h ere, an d we

t h erefo re d eem an y s u ch cl ai m ab an d o n ed

. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c) (2 );

To l b er t v. To o l e

, 2 9 6 Ga. 3 5 7

, 3 6 3 (3 ) (7 6 7 SE2 d 2 4 ) (2 01 4 ) (“ It i s [t h e ap p el l an t ] ’ s

b u rd en

, as t h e p art y ch al l en g i ng t h e ru l in g b e l o w, t o affi rm at i v el y sh o w erro r fro m

11t h e reco rd o n ap p eal .”); Br i t t a in v

. S t a t e

, 3 2 9 G a. Ap p

. 6 8 9, 7 0 4 (4 ) (a) (7 6 6 SE2 d

1 0 6 ) (2 01 4 ) (“ [A] n ap p el l an t m u s t s u p p ort en u m erat i o n s of erro r w i t h arg u m en t an d

ci t at i o n o f au th o ri t y

, an d m ere co n cl u s o ry s t at em en t s are no t t h e t y pe 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 ur ru l es .”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); Di xo n v.

MARTA

, 2 4 2 Ga. Ap p. 2 6 2

, 2 6 6 (4 ) (5 2 9 SE2 d 3 9 8 ) (2 0 00 ) (l eg al an al y s i s

, at a

m i n i m u m

, req u i res “ a d is cu s s i o n o f t h e ap p ro p ri at e l aw as ap p li e d t o t h e rel ev an t

fact s,” an d “ ap p el l at e ju dg es s h o u l d n o t b e ex pect ed t o t ak e p il g ri m ag es i n to reco rd s

i n s earch of erro r wi t h o u t t h e co m p as s o f ci t at i on a n d a rg u m en t ”) (ci t at i o n an d

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

(d ) Cal v in d o es n o t i d en t i fy an y o t h er t h eo ri es u nd er wh i ch t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s m ay b e h el d v i cari o u sl y l i ab l e fo r an y al l eg ed wro n g d oi n g b y Ham m o r

an y o th er m em

b er o f th e m ed i cal team th at t reat ed J erl i n e at Pai n C a r e i n Au g u s t

2 0 1 9

. C on s eq uen t l y

, we affi rm t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary j u d gm en t t o t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s o n each o f Cal v i n ’ s i m p u t ed o r v i cari ou s l i ab i l it y cl ai m s

.

2

. Cal vi n al s o ch al l en g es t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at t h e Set t l em en t A g reem en t

b ars h i s cl ai m s ag ai n st t h e O racl e Defen d an t s fo r v i cari o u s , co rp o rat e, an d i m p u t ed

l i ab i l i t y

.

12(a) Ou r ru l i n g in Di v i s i o n 1 m o o t s Cal v i n’ s ch al len g e to t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

as t o t h e effect o f t he Set t l em en t Ag reem en t o n h i s cl ai m s f o r v i cari o u s o r i m

p u t ed

l i ab i l i t y

.

(b ) Cal v i n ’ s referen ces t o co rp o rat e li ab i l i ty i n h i s ap p el l at e bri efs are l i m i t ed

t o : (i ) a ci t at i o n t o OCGA § 1 4 -2 -6 2 2 (b ) (“ U n l es s o t h erwi s e p ro v i d ed i n th e art i cl es

o f i n co rp o rat i o n

, a s h areh o l d er o f a co rp o rat i o n is n o t p e r s o n a l ly l i ab l e fo r t h e act s

o r d eb t o f t h e co rp o rat i o n ex cep t t h at h e m ay b eco m e p ers o n al l y l i ab l e b y reas o n o f

h i s o wn act s o r co n du ct .”); an d (i i ) a co n cl u s o ry as s ert i o n t h at “ [a] co urt can n o t l i m i t

l i ab i l i t y of a co rp o rat i o n o wn er wh o h ad p ri v i t y o r k n owl ed g e o f s p eci fi c n eg l i g en t

act s wh i ch cau s ed t h e l os s o f a l i fe o r p ro p ert y .” (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed

. ) As i s t h e cas e

wi t h h i s referen ce to OCGA § 5 1 -2 -5 (2 ) (s ee Di v is i o n 1 (c)), Cal v i n el ab o rat es n o

arg u m en t o n ap p eal as t o h o w t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e co u l d g i v e ri se t o a cl ai m fo r

co rp o rat e l iab i l i ty

. W e t h erefo re d eem an y s u ch arg u m en t ab an d on ed an d affi rm t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t to t he Oracl e Defen d an t s o n Cal v i n ’ s

co rp o rat e l i ab il i t y cl ai m

, p ret erm i t t i n g wh et h er s u ch a cl ai m o t h erwi s e p ot en t i al l y

co u ld l i e u n d er th e ci rcu m s t an ces p res en ted h ere. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c)

(2 ); To l b er t

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 3 6 3 (3 ); Br i t t a in

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 0 4 (4 ) (a); Di xo n

, 2 4 2 Ga.

Ap p . at 2 6 6 (4 ).

133

. Cal vi n co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t g ran t ed s um m ary ju d g m en t

o n h i s n eg l i g en t cred en t i al in g, h i ri n g

, an d t rai n i n g cl ai m s

. As s t at ed ab o v e, t h e t ri al

co u rt co ncl u d ed t h at Cal v in ’ s neg l i g en t cred en t i al in g cl ai m fai l s b ecau se t h ere i s n o

ev i d en ce t h at Ham

m was u n q u al i fi ed to p ro v i d e m ed ical care i n Au gu s t 2 0 1 9 an d t h at

h i s neg l ig en t h i ri n g a n d ret en t i o n cl ai m s fai l b ecau s e t h ere i s n o ev i den ce t h at an y

act s o r o m i s s i o n s b y

Ham m cau s ed J erl i n e’ s d eat h . W e ad dres s each ru li n g i n t u rn

.

(a) Neg l i g en t cr ed en t i al i n g

.

(i ) A n eg l i g en t cred en t i al i n g cl ai m “ i s an i n d ep en den t cau s e o f act i o n ari s i n g

o u t o f a heal t h care in s ti t u t i o n’ s d i rect res po n s i b i l i t y to i t s p at i en ts t o tak e reas o n ab l e

s t ep s t o e n s u re th at m ed ical care p ro v i ders are q u al i fi ed .” W el l s t a r Hea l th S

ys tems

v. Gr een

, 2 5 8 Ga. Ap p

. 8 6

, 8 8 (1 ) (5 7 2 SE2 d 7 31 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (ad d res s i n g a cl ai m t h at a

h eal t h care cl i ni c n eg l i g en t l y cred en t i al ed a n u rs e on i t s s t a f f ) ; acco rd La d

n er v.

No r t hs i d e H o sp

. , 3 1 4 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 6

, 1 3 8

, n

. 4 (7 23 SE2 d 4 5 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ); s ee al s o

S h ef f i el d v. Zi l i s

, 1 70 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2

, 6 3 (1 ) (3 1 6 SE2 d 4 9 3 ) (1 9 8 4) (a h eal t h care

i n s t i t u t i o n h as a d u t y t o “ act i n g o o d f a i t h an d wi t h rea s o n a b l e ca r e ” i n t h e s el ect i o n

o f m ed i cal p ro fes si o nal s ); Jo in er v. Mi tch el l Co u n t y Ho s p

. Au t h

. , 1 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1

, 3

(1 ) (1 8 6 SE2 d 3 0 7 ) (1 9 7 1 ) (a ho s p i t al m ay b e l i ab le fo r i t s own n eg l i g en ce i f i t fai l s

t o ex erci s e care i n d et erm i n i n g t h e p ro fes s i on al co m p et en cy o f a p h y s i ci an ). Th u s

,

14u n l i k e v i cari o u s l i ab i li t y cl ai m s b as ed o n r e sponde a t supe r io r, n eg l i g en t cred en t i al i n g

cl ai m s are “ n ot de p e nde nt on a m a ste r -s erv an t rel at i o n s h i p .” W el l s t a r Hea l t h S

ys t ems

,

2 5 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 8 (1 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n om i t t e d ) ; acco rd M cCa l l v. Hen r y

Med

. Cen t er

, 2 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 6 79

, 6 8 2 ( 1 ) ( 5 51 SE2 d 7 3 9) (2 0 0 1). As wi t h o t h er

n eg li g en ce cl ai m s

, to p ro v e n eg l i g en t cred en t i al i n g

, a p lai n t i ff m us t “ sh o w a l eg al l y

at t ri b u t ab l e cau s al co n n ect i o n b et ween t h e defen d an t ’ s co n d uct an d th e al l eg ed

i n ju ry .” La d

n er , 3 1 4 Ga. Ap p . at 1 4 0.

In t h e t ri al co u rt , Cal v i n s u b m i t t ed ex p ert affi d av i t s b y t wo an es t h es i o l o g i s t s

(Pau l Do m s o n

, J r., M .D., an d J ay El l i s, J r., M.D.) an d a C RNA (Bren t So m m er). 4

Dr. El l i s at t es t ed t h at

, d uri n g J erl i n e’ s v i s i t t o Pai n Care i n Au gu s t 20 1 9, t h e fai l u re

o f t h e m ed i cal t eam (i n cl u d i n g Ham m ) t o “ p r o v i d e ad eq u at e o x y g en at i o n an d

v en t i l at i o n ” to J erl i n e res u l t ed i n her card i ac arres t an d d eat h

. CRNA So m m er

s i m i l arl y at t es ted t h at

, d uri n g t h at vi s i t

, Ham m d ev i at ed fro m accep t ab le s t an d ard s o f

care i n m u lt i pl e way s an d t h at

, as a res u l t

, J er l i n e w a s t r an s p o rt ed t o t h e h o s p i t al

“ wi t h a co m

p ro m i s ed an d i n ad eq u at e ai rway an d o x yg en at i o n ” an d s u ffered an

“ u n t i m el y deat h

. ” Mo reo v er, D r. D o m s o n at t es t ed t h at : (i ) t he Oracl e Defen d an t s

4 T h e Oracl e Defen d an t s d o n o t rai s e an y ev i d en ti a r y c h a l l en ges t o Cal v i n ’ s

ex p ert affi d av i t s o n ap p eal

.

15d ev iat ed fro m t h e s t an dard o f care b y “ fai l [i n g ] t o p ro perl y cred en t ial

. . . Ham m an d

t o rem ov e h er fro m s erv i ce aft er h av i n g k n o wl ed ge o f h er p ro fes s i o n al an d m en t al

i n co m pet en ce” b as ed o n H am m ’ s cri m in al an d d i s ci p l i n ary h i stor y ; a nd ( ii) the O racl e

Defen d an t s ’ n eg l i g en t cred en t i al i n g o f Ham m was a “ s i g n i fi can t co n t ri bu t i n g cau s e”

o f J erl in e’ s d eat h, wh i ch wo u l d n o t h av e o ccu rred i f Ham m h ad n o t b een im

p ro p erl y

cred en t i al ed b y

t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s

.

Gi v en t h es e ex p ert affi dav i t s

— wh i ch we m u s t v i ew i n a li gh t m o st fav o rab l e

t o Cal vi n

, see Ci ty o

f St

. Ma r ys

, 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 50 8 -5 0 9

— t he t ri al co u rt erred

wh en i t fo u n d t h at Cal v in h ad o ffered n o ev id en ce (a) t h at Ham m was u nq u al i fi ed to

p ro v id e t h e m ed i cal care s he ren d ered t o J erl i n e i n Au g u s t 2 0 1 9 o r (b ) of an y act s o r

o m is s i o n s b y H am m t h at cau sed J erl i n e’ s deat h

. In t hat reg ard

, t h e affi d av i t s al s o

were s u ffi ci en t t o rai s e d i s p u t ed fact u al i s s u es as t o wh et h er t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s

s at i s fi ed t h ei r res p o ns i bi li t y t o t ak e reas o n ab l e st ep s to en su re t h at H am m was

q u al i fi ed t o ren der t h e t y

p e o f m ed i cal care t h at w as req u i red o f o n e i n h er p o s i t i o n.

See W el ls t a r Hea l t h S ys t ems

, 2 5 8 Ga. Ap p . at 8 8 (1 ).

In ad d i ti o n, Cal v in al s o s u b m i t t ed ev id en ce t h at

, ap p ro x i m at el y 2 1 m o n t h s

b efo re J erl i n e’ s Au g u s t 2 0 1 9 v i s i t t o Pai n Care, an o t h er p at i en t t o w h o m Ham m

p ro v id ed m ed i cal care (t h ro u g h h e r co n t ract wi t h t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s ) s u ffered

16i n

ju ri es res u l t i n g fro m o x y g en at i o n p ro b l em s t h at aro s e wh i l e res u s ci t at i v e m eas u res

were b ei n g ad m i n i s t ered

. 5 Ev id en ce reg ard in g i n ju ri es t o an o t h er p at ien t o f Ham m in

a n i n c i d en t t hat p re-d at ed Jerl i n e’ s Au g u s t 2 0 1 9 v i si t p ro v i d es fu rt h er s u p p o rt fo r

Cal v in ’ s cl ai m t h at t he Oracl e Defen d an t s were o n n o t i ce o f Ham m ’ s al l eg ed

d efi ci en ci es an d thus a c t ed n eg li g en t l y b y au t h o ri zi n g Ham m t o p ro v id e m ed ical care.

Co n s eq u en t l y

, we rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s o n Cal v i n ’ s cl ai m fo r n eg l i g en t cred en t ial i n g

.

(i i) Th e Oracl e D efen dan t s bri efl y co n t en d t h at

, b y “ ex t i n g u i s h[i n g ] ” al l cl ai m s

ag ai n s t Ham

m

, t h e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t n eces sari l y ex t i ng u is h ed al l d i rect cl ai m s

ag ai n s t t h em b ecau s e an y su ch cl ai m s are “ d eri vat i ve” o f t he u nd erl y i n g n eg l i g en ce

cl ai m s ag ai n s t Ham

m

. T h ey ci t e a s i n g l e d eci s i o n i n su p p o rt o f t h at pro p o s i t i o n:

Ho s p. Au t h

. o f Va l do s t a /

Lo wn des Co u n t

y v. Fen d er

, 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3

, 23 (2 ) (8 0 2

5 T h e O r acl e Defen d an t s arg u e th at fact s reg ard i n g Ham m ’ s care o f an o t h er

p at i en t are i rrel ev a n t a n d i n ad m i s si b l e i n th i s p ro ceed i n g. No tab l y

, ho wev er, t h ey

p o i n t t o n o t ri al co u rt ru l i n g o n an y s u ch is s u e. An d wh il e we ex p res s n o o p i n i o n o n

t h e u l t i m at e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f s u ch ev i d en ce u n der t h e fact u al an d p ro ced u ral p o s t u re

t h at m ay ex i st wh en t h e t ri al co u rt m ay b e cal l ed u p o n t o deci d e t h at i s s u e, i t s u ffi ces

t o say t h at

, fo r p u rp o ses o f t he s u m m ary ju d g m en t ru l i n g s at i s s u e h ere, ev i den ce t h at

Ham m ex p eri en ced o x y g en at i o n p ro b l em s w i t h an o th er p at i en t b efo re J erl i n e’ s 2 0 1 9

v i s i t t o Pai n C a re b ears o n wh et h er t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s s at i sfi ed t h ei r

res p o n s i b i l i t y

t o t ak e reas o n ab l e s t ep s t o en s ure t h at Ham m was q u al i fi ed t o ren d er

t h e t y p e o f h eal t h care t h at was req u i red of h er p o s i t i o n at t h e t i m e o f J erl i n e’ s v i s i t

. See W el ls t a r Hea l t h S ys t ems

, 2 5 8 Ga. Ap p . at 8 8 (1 ).

17SE2 d 3 4 6 ) (2 0 1 7), ov erru l ed i n p art b y Qu yn n v. Hu l

s ey

, 3 1 0 Ga. 4 7 3

, 4 8 2 & n

. 1 0

(8 5 0 SE2 d 7 2 5 ) ( 2 0 2 0 ). Ou r d eci s i o n i n Fen d er

, h o wev er, d i d n o t h o ld t h at a

s et t l em en t ag reem en t rel eas i n g a p ri m ary t o rt f e a sor ba r s a ll d irect cl ai m s ag ai n s t o t h er

p o t en t i al t o rt feas o rs t h at m ay be d eri v at i v e o f t h e p ri m a r y tor t feas o r’ s n eg l i g en ce. See

3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 3 (2 ). W e rat h er h el d th at

, wh ere an em p l o y er “ h as ad m i t t ed

res p o n d eat s up eri or li ab i l i t y an d t h e p l ai n t i ff i s n o t s eek i n g p u ni t i v e d am ag es ”

— a

s i tu at i o n n o t p res en t i n t h i s cas e

— t h e em p l o y er i s en t i t l ed t o s u m

m ary ju d g m en t o n

t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s fo r n eg l ig en t h i ri n g

, t rai n in g

, s up erv i s i o n

, an d ret en t i o n

, wh i ch

“ a r e m erel y d up li cat i v e o f t h e res p o n d eat s u peri o r cl ai m .” Id

. (ci t at i o n an d

p u nct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). Th us

, s et t i n g as i d e t h e fact t h at o u r ru l i ng i n t h at reg ard w a s

o v erru l ed i n Qu

yn n

, 31 0 Ga. at 4 8 2 & n

. 1 0

, i t d oes n ot s u p po rt t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s ’ p o s i ti o n

, an d we t h erefo re reject t h ei r cl ai m t h at t h e Set t l em en t

Ag reem en t b ars Cal v i n ’ s d irect n eg li g en ce cl ai m s ag ai ns t t h em

.

(i ii ) W e n o te

, h o w e v er, t h at t h e p art i es h av e n o t ci t ed

, an d res earch h as n ot

rev eal ed

, an y b i nd i n g p reced en t cl earl y ad dres s i n g w het h er a n eg l i g en t cred en t i al i n g

cl ai m m ay li e ag ai ns t an en t it y s u ch as Oracl e (wh i ch

, o n t he cu rren t reco rd

, d o es n ot

ap p ear t o b e a h o s p i t al

, cl i n i c, o r s im i l ar m ed i cal faci l i t y ) o r i t s own er. See, e.g

.,

Ho s p. Au t h . o f Va l d o s t a & Lo wn d

es Co u n t y v. Meeks , 2 8 5 Ga. 5 21

, 52 1 (6 7 8 SE2 d

187 1 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (cl ai m ag ai n st h o sp i t al ); Ho u s t o n Ho s p i t a l s v. Reeves , 3 56 Ga. Ap p . 5 0,

5 1 (8 4 6 SE2 d 2 1 9) (2 02 0 ) (s am e); La d n e r

, 3 1 4 G a

. Ap p

. at 13 6 (s am e); W el l s t a r

Hea lt h S ys t ems

, 2 5 8 Ga. Ap p

. a t 8 6

, 8 8 (1 ), 91 (3 ) (cl ai m ag ai ns t co rp o rat e h eal th

care p ro v i d er t h at o p erat ed cl i n i c v i si t ed b y d eced en t); McCa l l

, 2 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 8 0

(1 ) (cl ai m ag ai ns t h o sp i tal ). Becau s e fu l l b ri efi n g b y t h e p art i es an d an al y s i s b y t h e

t r i a l co u rt wo u l d b e b en efi ci al t o t h e res o l ut i o n o f t h i s i s s u e, t h e p art i e s s h o u l d

ad d res s i t b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt o n rem an d

.

(b ) Neg l i g en t h i r i n g , r et en t i o n, t r ai ni n g, a n d s u p er vi s i on

. 6

(i ) “ Un d er G eo rg i a l aw, an em p l o y er h as a leg al d u t y t o ex erci s e o rd in ary care

i n t h e s el ect i on of it s o wn em p l o y ees .” New S t a r Rea l t

y v. Ju ng a n g P

RI US A

, 3 4 6 Ga.

Ap p

. 5 4 8

, 5 6 1 (1 ) (c) (i ) (8 1 6 SE2 d 5 0 1 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (p hy s i cal p reced en t on l y ); s ee OCGA

§ 3 4 -7 -2 0 (“ Th e em

p lo y er is b o u n d t o ex erc i s e o rd i n ary care i n t h e s el ect i o n o f

em pl o y ees an d n o t t o ret ai n t h em aft er k n o wl ed g e o f i n co m p et e n c y

. . . .”); Do e v.

Y ou n g W o men ’s Ch r i s t i a n As s n

. o

f Gr ea t er At l an t a

, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 3

, 4 08 (2 ) (7 4 0

SE2 d 4 5 3 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ A n em p l o y er h as a d u t y

t o ex erci s e o rd i n ary

care n o t t o h i re o r

6 In i ts o rd er g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t

, th e t ri al co u rt o n l y b ri efl y m en t i o n ed

Cal v in ’ s n eg l i g en t trai ni n g cl ai m an d d i d n o t refer at al l t o hi s n eg l i gen t s u p erv i s i o n

cl ai m

. As d i scu s s ed b el o w

, w e ad dres s t h o s e cl ai m s h ere b ecau s e t h ei r res o l u t i o n

n eces s ari l y

fo l l o ws fro m

o u r o t h er ru li n gs i n t h is d eci si o n

.

19ret ai n an em p l o y ee t h e em

p l o y er k n ew o r s ho u l d hav e k n own p o sed a ri s k o f h arm

t o o t hers wh ere i t i s reas o n ab l y fo res eeab le t h at t h e em p l o y ee’ s t en d en ci es co u ld

cau s e t h e t y

p e of h arm su s t ai n ed b y t h e p l ai n t iff.”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ).

Th e t o r t s o f n eg l i g en t h i ri n g an d ret en t i o n, h o wev er, d o n o t ap p l y t o i n d ep en d en t

co n tract ors

. O’Del l v. Ma ho n ey

, 3 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 0, 3 67 (4 ) (7 5 0 SE2 d 6 8 9) (2 0 1 3 );

s ee Fi n l ey v. Leh ma n

, 2 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 8 9

, 79 1 (2 ) (4 63 SE2 d 7 0 9 ) (1 9 95 ) (t h e t o rt o f

n eg li g en t h i ri n g d oes n ot ap p ly t o an i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r). Becau s e, as d i s cu s s ed

ab o ve i n Di v i s i o n 1

, Cal v i n h as n o t s h o wn t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t

d et erm i n ed t h at Ham

m was an i n d ep en den t co n t ract o r, we affi rm t h e g ran t o f

s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n h i s cl ai m s fo r n eg l i g en t h i ri n g an d ret en t i o n

.

(i i) Gi v en t h at Cal v i n h as n o t s ho wn t h at H am m was t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s ’

em pl o y ee, t h e Oracl e Defen d an t s a l so w e r e e ntit l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t on Cal v i n ’ s

c l a i m f o r n eg l i g en t t rai n i ng

. See New S ta r Rea l t y

, 34 6 G a. Ap p

. at 5 6 2 (1 ) (c) (i i )

(“ [T] h ere can b e no cl ai m fo r neg l i gen t h i ri ng

, t r a i n i n g

, an d s u p erv i s i o n o f cert ai n

i n d i v i d u al s w h ere, as h ere, t h e d efen d an t was no t t h e em p l o y er o f t h o s e

i n d i v i d u al s .”). An d wh i l e no t ex p l i ci t l y ad d res s ed b y t h e tri al co u rt

, t h e s am e i s t ru e

fo r Cal v i n ’ s cl ai m

fo r n eg l i gen t s u p erv is i o n o f Ham m . See i d.

204

. C a l v i n h as ab an d on ed

, b y fai li n g t o el ab o rat e an y arg u m en t or ci t e an y

au t h o ri t y i n s u p p o rt o f h i s en u m erat i o n o f erro r n u m b er 4

, h i s cl ai m

t h at “ [t ] h e t ri al

co u rt erred b y g ran t i n g Defen d an t s [’ m ] ot i o n fo r [s ] u m m ary ju dg m en t on al l cl ai m s

b ecau s e OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 req u i res t h e ju ry t o co ns i d er ap p o rt i o ni n g a percen t ag e

o f fau l t t o Defen d a n t s a s a t o r t feas o r [s i c] .” See Co u rt o f A p p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c) (2 );

To l b er t

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 3 6 3 (3 ); Br i t t a i n

, 3 2 9 Ga. A p p

. at 7 0 4 (4 ) (a); Di xo n

, 2 4 2 Ga.

Ap p . at 2 6 6 (4 ).

5

. Cal v in h as wai v ed , b y fai l i n g t o en u m erat e as erro r, an y ch al l en g e h e m ay

h av e to t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ru l in g t h at h i s cl ai m fo r p ro fes s i o n al ne g l i g e n c e ag ai n s t

Dr. Po l k fai l s du e t o t h e ab s en ce o f a d o ct o r

- p a t i en t rel at i o ns h i p wi t h Jerl i n e. See

Gr es h a m v. Ha r ri s

, 3 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 4

, 1 3 8 (1 )

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

(co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e ap p el l an t wai v ed an y cl ai m t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in m ak i n g

a cert ai n fi n d i n g “ b y

fai l i n g t o en u m erat e i t as an erro r an d p ro vi d e an y s u p p o rt i n g

arg u m en t ” o n ap p eal ); Ka rl s b er g v. Ho o ver

, 1 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 59 0

, 5 9 4 (2 3 6 SE2 d 5 2 0 )

(1 9 7 7) (“ [T] h i s co u rt h as h el d t h at an ap p el l an t is req u i red in i t s in i t i al b ri ef t o fi l e an

arg u m en t wh ich s up p o rt s an y en u m erat i o n s o f erro r i t d o es n o t wi s h t o wai ve.”). W e

t h erefo re affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ru li n g o n t h i s i s s ue, as wel l

.

216

. In i t s o rd er g ran t in g s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ad d res s

Cal v in ’ s cl ai m s fo r: (i ) p ro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce (m ed i cal m al p ract i ce) ag ai n s t Oracl e;

(i i) neg l i g en ce per s e, b as ed o n al l eg ed reg u lat o ry v i o l a t i o n s ag ai n s t t h e Oracl e

Defen d an t s ; an d (i i i) n eg l ig en t fai l u re t o rep ort Ham m ’ s al l eg ed m i s co nd u ct ag ai n s t

t h e Oracl e Defen dan t s

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, th o s e cl a i m s

— u p o n wh i ch we ex p res s n o

o p i n i o n —

rem ai n p en d i n g b efo re t h e t ri al co urt

.

7

. Becau s e we rev ers e t he g ran t o f s u m m ary j u dg m en t o n Cal v in ’ s n eg l i g en t

cred en t i al i n g cl ai m

, s ee Di v i s i o n 3 (a), an d b ecau se s ev eral ad di t i o n al cl ai m s rem ai n

p en di n g

, s ee Di v i s i o n 6

, we al s o rev ers e t h e g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m en t o n Cal v i n ’ s

cl ai m s fo r pu n i t i v e d am ag es an d at to rn ey fees . Th e t ri al co u rt s h o u l d ad d res s t h o s e

cl ai m s aft er i t h as d i s p o s ed o f t h e rem ai n i n g, u n derl y i n g , s u b s t an t i v e cl ai m s

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med i n p a r t a n d r ever

s ed i n p a r t

, an d ca se r ema n d

ed wi th

d i r ect i o n. Do

yl e, P. J., a n d Rees e, J., co ncu r

.

22