SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, HODGES and PI PKI N, 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

.

M ay 21, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 63 0

. W E NTZ et al

. v

. E M ORY HEALTHCARE, INC. et al

.

M I LLE R

, Pres i d i n g Ju d ge.

Geo rg e W e s t l e y W en t z an d Bet t y Su zan n e W en t z (co l l ect i vel y

, “ W en t z”),

p l ai n t i ffs i n t h e ci v i l act i on bel o w, ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g

s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o t h e d efen d an t s

, Em o ry H eal th care In c., d /b / a Em o ry U ni v ers i t y

Ho s pi t al M i d t o w n

, et al

. (co l lect i v el y

, “ Em o ry ”) an d di s m i s s i n g t h e co m p l ai n t wi th

p reju d i ce. W en t z co n t en d s th at s u m m ary ju d g m en t w as i n ap pro p ri at e b ecau s e t h ere

are g en u i n e i s s u es o f m at eri al fact as to h i s cl ai m s o f b at t ery an d s i m p le n eg l i g en ce. 1

W en t z, h o wev er, h as fai l ed t o d em o n s t r a t e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t was

erro neo u s , an d we t h erefo re affi rm

.

1 Em o ry h a s fi l ed a m o t i o n t o d is m i s s t hi s ap p eal o n t h e g ro u nd t h at W en t z

fi led h i s ap p el l at e b ri ef o ne d ay aft er t he d ead l i n e (as ex t en d ed ) t o d o s o

. Th at m o t i o n

i s h ereb y d en i ed

.“ Su m

m ary ju d g m en t i s p ro p er wh en th ere i s n o g en u i n e i s su e of m at eri al fact

a n d t h e m o v an t i s en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw. In rev iewi n g a g ran t o r

d en ial o f s u m

m ary j u d gm en t

, we o we n o d eferen ce to t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g an d we

rev i ew d e n o v o b o t h th e ev i d en ce an d t he tri al co u rt ’ s leg al co n cl u s i o n s

. ” (Ci t at i on s

an d pu n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) S wi n t v. Al p h on s e

, 3 4 8 G a. Ap p

. 1 9 9

, 1 9 9-2 0 0 (8 2 0 SE2 d

3 1 2 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

So v i ewed

, th e reco r d s h o w s t hat

, i n M arch 2 0 1 6

, W en t z u nd erwen t a

l am i n ect o m

y at a h o s p i t a l o wn ed b y Em o ry Heal t h care, In c. A fo l ey cat h et er was

p l aced du r i n g t h e pro ced u re an d

, t wo d ay s l at er, a n urs e i m p ro p erl y rem ov ed t h e

cat h et er wi t h o u t fi rs t d efl at i n g t h e b al l o o n

. W en t z fi l ed a ci v i l act i on ag ai n st Em o ry

b u t l at er v o l u n t ari l y d i s m i s s ed h i s cas e. He t h en fi l ed a ren ewal co m p l ai nt b as ed o n

t h e s am e al l eg at io n s

. 2 T h e ren ewal co m p l ai n t d i d n o t i n d i cat e p reci s el y wh at t h eo ry

o f reco v ery W en t z was pu rs u i n g

, b u t i t al l eg ed t h at t h e nu rs e’ s fai lu re t o d efl at e t h e

b al l o o n v i o l at ed “ t h e b as i c an d ap p ro p ri at e s t an d ard o f care fo r n u rs i ng .”

2 Th e t ri al co u rt d i sm i s s ed t h e ren ewal co m p l ai n t as b arred b y res ju d i cat a, b ut

we r e v e r s ed t h at d eci s i o n

, co n cl u d i n g t h at W en tz’ s vo l u n t ary d i s m i s sal of t h e fi rs t

co m p l ai n t was wi t h o ut p reju d i ce. W en t z v. Emo r y H ea l t h ca r e, In c.

, 3 47 Ga. Ap p

. 3 0 2

(8 1 9 SE2 d 2 9 6 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

2Em o ry t reat ed th e act i o n as a m ed i cal m al p ract i ce s u i t

, an d

, aft er t h e d i s co v ery

p eri o d en d ed

, i t fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t arg ui n g t h at W en t z h ad fai l ed

t o p ro d u ce t h e ex p ert wi t n es s t es t i m o n y n eces s ary t o su p p o rt h i s cl ai m o f p ro fes s i o n al

n eg li g en ce. W en t z, i n t u rn

, fi l ed a m o t i o n t o ex t en d d is co v ery

. T he tri al co u rt h el d a

h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o ns

, du ri n g wh i ch i t i n d i cat ed t hat i t wo u l d g ran t Em o ry ’ s m o t i o n

fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t an d d en y W en t z’ s req u es t fo r ad d it i on al ti m e t o s ecu re ex p ert

t es t i m o ny

. W en t z t hen as s ert ed t h at h e had rai s ed n ot o n l y a c l a i m of p ro fes s i o n al

n eg li g en ce, bu t al s o a cl ai m o f s i m p l e b at t ery

, wh i ch d o es n o t req u i re a p ro fes s i o n al

o p i n i o n

. Th e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e part i es t o fi l e s u p p l em en t al bri efs ad d res s i n g “ t h e

b at t ery i s s u e.”

In h i s s u p pl em en tal b ri ef, W en t z as s ert ed th at

, al t h o u gh h e i n i t i al ly co n s en t ed

t o t he nu rs e’ s rem o v al o f t h e cat h et er, h e wi t h d rew t h at co n s en t b y v eh em en t l y

p ro t es t i n g an d t el l i n g t h e n u rs e t o s t o p aft er s h e b eg an t h e rem o v al

. H e co n ten d ed t h at

t h e n u rs e was n eg l i g en t fo r fai l i n g t o d efl at e t he b al lo o n befo re rem o v i ng t h e cat h et er,

an d h e m ai n t ai ned t hat t h e n u rs e’ s fai lu re t o s t op rem o v i n g t h e cat het er i n l i g h t o f h i s

p ro t es t s was a b at t ery

. T h e tri al co u rt ru l ed in Em ory ’ s fav o r, co n cl u d i n g t h at W en t z

h ad n o t rai s ed a cl ai m fo r b at t ery i n ei th er h i s co m p l ai n t o r ren ewal co m

p l ai n t an d,

m o reo ver, t h at al l o f W en t z’ s cl ai m s s o u n d ed i n p ro fes s io n al n eg l i g en ce. Th e t ri al

3co u rt fu rt h er d et erm i n ed t h at

, ev en i f W en t z h ad rai s ed a b at t ery cl ai m b as ed o n h i s

wi t h d rawal o f co n s en t t o t h e rem o v al of th e cat h et er, t h at cl ai m fai l ed b ecau s e h e d id

n o t es t ab l i s h t h at i t wo u l d h av e b een feas i b le fo r t h e n u r s e t o st o p rem o v i n g t h e

cat h et er wi t h ou t t he ces sat i on b ei n g d et ri m en t al to h i s h eal t h

. Acco rd i n g ly

, t h e t ri al

co u rt gran t ed s um m ary j u d gm en t t o Em o ry as t o al l rem ai n i n g cl ai m s

, an d i t

d i s m i s s ed t h e ren ewal co m p l ai n t wi t h p reju d i ce. W en t z t h en fi l ed t h i s ap peal

.

On ap peal

, W en tz as sert s t h at h e rai s ed t w o cl ai m s fo r wh i c h s u m m ary

ju d g m en t was i n ap p ro p ri at e: bat t ery an d s i m pl e n eg l i g e n ce. He co nt en d s t h at t h e

n u rs e co m

m i t t ed a b at t ery ag ai ns t h im b y co nt i n u i ng t o rem ov e th e cat h et er ev en aft er

h e p ro t es t ed

, an d h e as sert s t h at t h e n u rs e co m m i t t ed s i m

p l e n eg l i g en ce b y fai l i n g to

fo l l o w t h e m an u fact u rer’ s i n s t ru ct i o n s as t o h o w th e cat h et er m u s t b e rem ov ed . W e

are n o t p ers u ad ed t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

.

1

. Fi rs t

, as t o t he b at t ery cl ai m

, W en t z’ s cl ai m o f erro r fai l s b ecau s e h e h as n ot

es t ab l i s h ed t h at t h e n u rs e co u l d h av e s t o p p ed rem ov i n g t h e cat h et er w i t h o u t t h e

ces s at i o n b ei ng d et ri m en t al t o h i s h eal t h. Ou r p reced en t i s cl ear t h at

, ab sen t s u ch a

s h o wi n g , W en t z can n o t s u s t ai n a cl ai m fo r b at t ery

.

It is t ru e t h at “ [a] m ed i cal t o u ch i ng wi t h ou t co n s en t co n s t i t u t es t h e i nt en t i o n al

t o rt o f b at t ery fo r wh i ch an act i o n wi l l l i e.” (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Ro b er t s v

. C o n n e l l

,

43 1 2 Ga. Ap p

. 51 5

, 5 1 7 (1 ) (7 1 8 SE2 d 8 62 ) (2 01 1 ). Fu rt h er, Geo rg i a l aw h as l o n g

reco g n ized t h a t a p a t i en t can wi t h d raw h i s co n s en t t o a m ed ical ex am i n at i o n o r

t reat m en t ev en aft er t h at p ro ced u re i s u n d erway

. See M i ms v. Bo la n d

, 1 1 0 Ga. Ap p.

4 7 7

, 4 8 3 (1 ) (b ) (1 3 8 SE2 d 90 2 ) (1 9 6 4 ). Bu t fo r a m ed i cal p ract i t i o n er t o b e s u b ject

t o l i ab i l i t y fo r b at t ery b as ed o n co n ti n u i n g a t reat m en t aft er th e pat i en t h as wi t h d rawn

h i s co n s en t

, t h e p l ai n t i ff m u s t pro v e t wo es s en ti al el e m e n t s : (1 ) t h at wh en

wi t h d rawi n g h i s co n s en t

, t h e p at i en t act ed o r u s ed l an g u ag e th at l eft “ n o ro o m fo r

d o u b t i n t h e m i n d s o f reas o n ab l e m en t h at i n v i ew o f al l t he ci rcu m s t an ces co n s en t

was act u al ly wi t h d rawn ,” an d (2 ) t h at i t was “ m ed i cal l y feas i b l e fo r t h e [p ract i t i o n er]

t o d es i s t i n t h e t r e at m en t o r ex am i n at i o n at th at p o i n t wi t h o u t t h e ces s at i o n b ei n g

d et ri m en t al t o t h e p at i en t ’ s h eal t h o r l ife fro m a m ed i cal v i ewp o in t .” Id . at 4 8 3 -4 8 4

(1 ) (b ). See al s o W

i l l i ams v. Lemo n

, 1 9 4 Ga. Ap p. 2 4 9

, 2 5 0 (2 ) (3 9 0 SE2 d 8 9) (1 9 9 0 )

(s am e). “ Th e b urd en of p ro v i n g each of t h es e es s e n t i al co n d i t io n s is u p o n t h e

p l ai n t i ff, an d wi t h reg ard t o t he s eco n d co n d i t i o n

, i t can o n l y b e pro v ed b y m ed i cal

ev i d en ce as m ed i cal qu es t i o n s are i n v o l v ed .” Mi m s

, s up ra, 1 1 0 Ga. Ap p . at 4 8 4 (1 )

(b ).

Here, as s u m i n g arg u en d o t h at W en t z su b m it t ed ev i d en ce as t o t he fi rs t el em en t

– t h at h e u n d o u b ted l y wi th d rew h i s co n s en t d u ri n g t h e rem o v al p ro ced u re

– h e cl earl y

5h as n o t i den ti fi ed an y ev i d en ce as t o t h e s eco n d el em en t

– t h at t h e n urs e co u l d h av e

s t op p ed rem o v i n g t he cat het er wi t h o u t t h e ces s at i o n b ei n g d et ri m en tal t o hi s h eal t h.

In d eed

, t he t ri al co u rt ap p l i ed t h i s p ri n ci p l e an d ci ted Mi ms i n i s s u i n g i t s ru l i n g

, b ut

W en t z’ s ap p el l at e b ri ef d o es n o t ad d res s th i s i ss u e a t al l

. M o reo v er, al t h o ug h “ i t i s

n o t t h e fu n ct i o n o f t h i s Co u rt t o cu l l t h e reco rd o n b eh al f o f a p art y ,” o u r rev i ew o f

t h e reco rd h as rev eal ed n o ex p ert wi t n es s t es ti m o n y to t hi s effect o r an y o t h er

co m p et en t ev i d e n c e s u p p o rt i n g t h i s s eco n d p ro ng

. See Jen ki n s v. S al l i e Ma e, In c

.,

2 8 6 Ga. A p p

. 5 0 2

, 5 0 5 (3 ) (6 49 SE2 d 8 0 2 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (ref u s i n g t o c ul l t h e reco rd o n

b eh al f o f p art y w h o fa i led t o ci t e t o s p eci fi c p o rt io n o f reco rd to es t ab l i s h fact ).

Em o ry was , t h erefo re, en ti t led t o s u m m ary ju d gm en t o n an y

b at t ery cl ai m

.

2

. As t o W en t z’ s as s ert i o n t h at h i s co m p l ai n t rai s ed a cl ai m o f s i m p l e

n eg li g en ce, we co ncl u d e t h at t hi s i ss u e i s no t p ro p erl y b efo re u s b ecau se W en t z d id

n o t rai se i t b efo re t h e t ri al co urt

.

Th e p u r p o s e beh i n d s u m m ary ju d g m en t is t o d i s p o s e o f l i t i gat i o n

ex p ed i t i o us l y an d av o id u s el es s t im e an d ex p en s e to g o t h ro u g h a ju ry

t ri al

. Th i s p u rp o s e i s t h wart ed wh e n a p art y m ay wi t h h o l d m eri t ori o u s

l eg al arg u m en t s u n t i l ap p eal . Al lo wi n g a p art y t o rai s e n ew arg u m en t s

al s o i g n o res t h e d u t i es an d res p o n s i b i li t ie s p laced o n t h e p art i es b y

OCGA § 9-1 1 -5 6

. Each p art y h as a du t y t o p res en t h i s b es t cas e o n a

m o t i o n fo r su m

m ary ju d g m en t

. Th i s Co u rt h as sp eci fi cal l y h el d t h at

, i n

6res p on d i n g t o a m o t i o n fo r s um m ary ju dg m en t

, p l ai n t i ffs hav e a

s t at u t o ry du t y t o p ro d uce wh at ev er v i ab l e t h eo ry of reco v ery th ey m i g h t

h av e o r ru n t h e ri sk o f an ad ju d i cat i o n o n t h e m eri ts o f t h ei r cas e.

( P u n c t u a t i o n o m i t t ed ). Pf ei ff er v. Ga

. Dep t

. of Tr a n s

p

. , 2 7 5 Ga. 8 27

, 82 8 (2 ) (5 7 3

SE2 d 3 8 9) (2 0 0 2).

Here, at t h e h eari n g o n Em o ry ’ s m o ti o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, W en t z as s ert ed

t h at h e h ad rai s ed n o t on l y a cl ai m o f p ro fes si o n al n eg li g en ce, b u t al so a cl ai m o f

b at t ery

, an d h e arg u ed t h at t h e b at t ery cl ai m co u l d s u rv i v e ev en w i t ho u t an ex p ert

af f i d a v it

. No tab l y

, W en t z di d n o t co n t en d at t hat t i m e th at h e h ad al so as s ert ed a

n eg li g en ce cl ai m th at co ul d s u rv i v e wi t h o u t an e x p e r t a ffi d av i t. Th e t ri al co u rt

d i rect ed t h e p art i es t o fi l e bri efs “ ju s t o n t h e b at t ery i s s u e,” an d W en t z t i t l ed h i s b ri ef

“ Pl ai n ti ff’ s Bri ef i n Op p os i ti o n t o Defen d an t s ’ M o t i o n fo r Su m m ary J u d g m en t as to

Pl ai n t i ff’ s Bat t ery Cl ai m s .” In th e b ri ef, W en t z arg u ed t h at t h e n u rs e’ s rem o v al o f t h e

cat h et er was a b at t ery b ecau s e (a) wh en h e co n sen t ed t o t h e p ro ced u re, h e was n ot

i n fo rm ed t h at th e rem o v al wo u l d b e perfo rm e d w it ho u t d efl at i n g t h e b al lo o n

, an d

(b ) h e w i t h d rew h i s co n s en t wh en h e ex p eri en ced ex cru ci at i n g p ai n

, t h us ren d eri n g

t h e n u rs e’ s co n t i nu ed rem o v al o f t h e c a the ter a b at t ery

. Ag ai n

, al t h o u g h W en tz cl earl y

co n ten d e d t h a t he h ad rai s ed a cl ai m o f b at t ery wh i ch wo u l d s u rv i v e s u m m ary

7ju d g m en t

, h e d i d n o t co n t en d t h at h e h ad al s o rai s ed a cl ai m o f o rd i nary n eg l i g en ce.

W en t z’ s fai l u re to rai s e t h i s l eg al arg u m en t b efo re t h e t ri al co urt p recl u des h i m fro m

rai s in g i t o n ap p eal . See Pf ei ff er , s u p ra, 2 75 Ga. at 8 2 8 -8 29 (2 ).

Un d er th e ci rcu m s t an ces

, W en t z h as fai l ed t o sh o w t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred by

g ran t i n g s u m

m ary ju d gm en t , an d we t h erefo re affi rm t he t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ho d

g es a n d Pi p ki n , JJ., co ncu r

.

8