FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 24, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1418 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-01535 -CV -JEC -1 SHARON SIMM ONS, adm inistrator of the estate of Trin a Ell io tt , dec eas ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, HAIBA SONYIKA, M.D., MYRTLE KAI, R.N., CFNP, SOUTHSIDE HEAL THCARE, INC., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 24, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and F A Y Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

In this m edical m alpractice case w e w ere face d with interpreting several Ge o rg i a s t at u t es an ds p ec i fi ca l l y wh et h ero r n o tO.C .G. A. § 9 -3 -7 1 (b ) ( Ge o rg i a’s fi ve y ear statut e of

r ep ose f or m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e ac tio ns) is ex te nde d by O . C. G . A . § 9- 3- 92 ( G eo rg ia ’ s un re pr es en te d st at e statut e) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld that the statut e of

r ep ose w as not

e xte nde d and d ism iss ed

the a ct ion . B ei ng unc er ta in o f the c or

re ct r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e tw o st at ute s w e ce rt if

ie d th e que sti on t o th e Su

pr em e Co urt of

G eo rg ia . S im

m ons v. S ony ika , 394 F . 3d 1 335 (11 Cir. 2004 ). th T he S upr em e Co urt of G eo rg iaha s answ er ed

our que sti on i n th e ne ga tiv e an d it s op ini on i s a tta ch ed a s an a ppe ndi x. S inc e the unr ep re se nte d e state statut e does not toll or extend the statu te of ultim ate re pose in m edical m alpractice ac tio ns, the dis m iss al by

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s affirm ed .

A P P EN D IX Inthe S upr em e Co urt of

G eo rg ia D ec ide d: May

23, 200 5

S0 5Q 0729 . S IM MO N S v. S O N Y IK A e t a l. CARLE Y, Justice.3

A ft er the de ath of

T ri naE lli ott , he r es ta te r em ai ne d un re pr es en te d f or 344 day s, unt il Sh ar on S im

m ons w as appoi nte d a dm ini str at or . I n th at r ep re se ntativ e ca pa ci ty , Ms . S im

m ons la te r br ough t su it in the S upe ri or Co urt of F ult on C ounty ag ai nst S outhsi de H ea lth care , I nc . , tw o of it s ph y sic ians, and o ne nur se , a lle gin g m edical m alpractice in the treatm ent of Ms. E lliott. Because S outh side becam e a federa lly suppo rted health center during th e period of treatm ent, the U nited States of A m er ic a int er

ve ne d, sub sti tut ed

it se lf a s ade fe ndant, and r em ove d th e ca se to the United States D istrict Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia. T he district co urt di sm iss ed

the U nit ed

S ta te s a s aparty

ba se d up on M s. S im

m ons * f ai lur e to ex haust state a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, and r em an de d th e ca se to the state c ourt. She later filed this action in th e fe deral district court against the United States. By co nse nt o rd er , Ms . S im

m ons ag re ed

to dis m iss the state c ourt a ct ionand t o am en d her fe deral com

plaint to j oin South side, one phy sician, and one nurse (Appellees). By the tim e Ms. Sim

m ons filed the am ended com plaint, however, it had been m ore than f ive y ears sin ce the a lle ge d ne gli ge nt a ct s of Appe lle es , but

le ss than f

ive y ears sin ce he r ap poi ntm en t a s a dm ini str at or . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the state co urt c la im s a ga ins t Appe lle es , hol din g th at suc h c la im s w er e barr ed

by the ap pli ca ble f ive -y ear statut e of

ult im at e re pose , w hic h r ea ds a s f oll ow s:

“N otw ith standi ng s ubse ct ion( a) of thi s C ode se ct ion , in no e ve nt m ay an a ct ion4

for m edical m alpractice be brought m ore than five y ears a fter the date on which th e n eg li ge nt or wro ng fu l ac t o r omiss io n o ccu rred .” OCGA § 9 -3 -7 1 (b ). On ap pe al , the U nit ed

S ta te s C ourt of

Appe al s f

or the E le ve nthCi rc uit

c er tif ie d th e following quest ion: “ W ill Georgia lawallow the unrepre sented estate statute, OCG A § 9-3-92, to toll th e ultim ate statute of re pose in m edical m alpractice ac tio ns, O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( b) , by the pe ri od d

ur ing w hic h th e es ta te w en t unrepresented?” Simm ons v. Sony ika, 394 F3d 133 5, 1340-134 1 (II) (11th Cir. 2004 ). Inpe rt ine nt p ar

t, O CG A § 9- 3- 92 p ro vid es that “ [t ] he ti m e be tw ee n th e de at h o f a p ers on an d t he co m m en cem en t o f rep res en ta ti on up on hi s es ta te ... sha ll not be c ount ed

a ga ins t hi s e state in ca lc ulatin g any li m itatio n a

ppl ic ab le to the br ing ing of

an a ct ion. . . . ” T ha t st at

ute appl ie d on ly

to statut es of

li m itatio n w he n it w as e na ct ed

ne ar ly 150 y ears a go, lon g be fo re the a dopt ionof le gis la tio n cr eatin g any

statut es of

r ep ose . G a. L . 185 5- 1856 , pp. 233 , 235 , 237 , §§ 2 1, 40; Wri ght v. Ro bin son, 262 G a. 844 , 846 ( 1) ( 426 SE 2d 8 70) ( 1993 ). “ T he subs equent enactm ent of OC GA§§ 9-3-71 and 9 -3-73 clearly distin guish es be tw ee n th e statut es of

li m itatio n and the statut es of r ep ose . ” Si le r v. Bl oc k, 204 Ga . App. 672, 674 (1)(420 SE2d 306) (1992). Indeed, OC GA§ 9-3-71 (c) expr es sly de sig na te s O CG A 9- 3- 71 ( b) a s “ a fi ve -y ear statut e of ult im at e re pose5

an d a br oga tio n, ” dif

fe re nti at ing it

f ro m the “ tw o- y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns” created by

OC GA§ 9-3-71(a). T he dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n th e statut e of li m itatio n and the statut e of re pose [ in O CG A § 9- 3- 71] is cl ear. “ A statut e of li m itatio n is a pr oc ed ur al r ule li m iti ng the ti m e in whic h aparty m ay br ing an a ct ion fo r a ri ght w hic h ha s a lr ea dy

a cc ru ed . Astatut e of

ult im at e re pose delineates a tim e period in which a r ight m ay accr ue. I f the inj ury oc cu rs ou ts id e th atpe rio d, i t i s n ot act io nabl e.” [Ci t.] Cr av env. L ow nde s C ounty , 263 G a. 657 , 660 ( 2) ( 437 SE 2d 3 08) ( 1993 ). S ee a lso Paff ord v. Biom et, 264 Ga. 540, 543 (1) (448 SE2d 347) (1994). A statut e of

r ep ose stands as an un y ie ldi ng b ar ri er to a plaintiff* s r igh t of

a ct ion . T he statut e of

r ep ose is ab sol ute ; the bar of

the statut e of

li m itatio n is c ont ing en t. [Cit. ] The statute of repose destroy s the previous ly existing rights so th at, on the expiration of the statutory pe rio d, t he cau se of a ct io n n o l on ge r ex is ts . [Ci t.] Wright v. Robinso n, supra at 845 (1) ( citing Massachusetts cases). Be ca use w e pr es um e that the le gis la tur e en ac ts a ll statut es w ithkno w le dge of the existing law s, the provisions of the m ore re cently adopted m edical m al pr ac tic e statut e of

r ep ose c ar

ry gr eate r w ei ght

than th ose of

the pr ee xis tin g6

unr ep re se nte d e state statut e. Wri ght v. Ro bin son, sup ra

a t 84 6 ( 1) . I n Wri ght , thi s Co urt r el ie d onthe “ in n o e ve nt” langua ge f ound in O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( b) and o n th e wording of the previouslyenacted r enewa l statute, O CGA§ 9-2-61 (a), which pr ovi sio n, li ke O CG A § 9- 3- 92, r ef er s on ly to “ lim itatio n. ” Bo th l ogi c an d th is pla in l an gua ge are c le ar

ind ic at ion s th at

the le gis la tur e ne ve r int en de d f or the unr ep re se nte d e state statut e to o ve rc om e the sub se que ntl y e na ct ed statut e of re pose . Wri ght

v. Ro bin son, sup ra . S ee a lso S ile r v. Bl oc k, sup ra . Co m pare Abe nd v. K laudt , 243 G a. App. 271 , 274 -2 76 ( 2) ( 531 SE 2d 7 22) ( 2000 ) (h old ing that the pr ovi sio ns o f O CG A § 9- 3- 72, r el at ing to fo re ignobj ec t c as es , w he n c onstru ed in lig ht o f the j udi ci al ly

c re at ed c ont inu ing tor

t do ctri ne upo n whic h it

w as ba se d, an d inpari m at er iaw ithO CG A § 9- 3- 73 ( d, e ), pla inl y pr ec lud e ap pli catio n of

the statute of repose). F urthe rm or e, ‘ “ [b ] y

de fi nit ion , astatut e of

ult im at e re pose c an not

be “ tol le d”

.. .. ”’ Osburn v. G oldm an, 269 Ga . App. 303 (1) (a) (603 SE2d 695) (2004). Se e al so E se ne r v. K ins ey , 240 G a. App. 21, 22 ( 522 SE 2d 5 22) ( 1999 ); H ill v. Fo rdha m , 186 G a. App. 354 , 357 ( 2) ( 367 SE 2d 1 28) ( 1988 ). T his pr inc ipl e is co nsi ste nt w iththe lawof the j ur isd ic tio n up on whic h th is C ourt r el ie d inWri ght .

“ Unlike statutes of lim itation, statutes of repose m ay not be ‘ tolled * f

or any r ea son, as ‘ tol lin g * w oul d de pr ive the de fe ndant o f the c er ta inty of the r ep ose de ad lin e an d7

the re by de fe at the pur pose of astatut e of

r ep ose . [ Ci t. ] ” N ett v. Be llu cc i, 774 NE 2d 13 0, 134 (2) (Ma ss. 2002).

“ Whe the r by

dis co ve ry , w hic h de lay s th e ac cr ua l of the a ct ion , or

by inf an cy , inc om

pe te nc y , or

f ra ud, w hic h m ay

tol l the statut e of lim itatio n f

or up t o f ive y ears . . . , nothin g st ops the abr oga tio n of the ac tio n by the statut e of

r ep ose ; f ive y ears a ft er

the ne gli ge nt o r w ro ngf ul a ct or om iss ionoc curr ed , de spi te any non -d isc ove ry

or any tol lin g, the m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e ac tio n or pot en tia l a ct ionc ea se s to ex is t b y ab ro ga ti on of l aw un de r th e st atut e o f rep os e. [Ci ts .] ” [Ci t.] E se ne r v. K ins ey , sup ra

a t 24 . N oth ing in the r el ev an t st at uto ry pr ovi sio ns i ndi cate s th at O CG A § 9- 3- 92 o r any other section of Article 5, O CGA§§ 9-3-90 et seq., can toll the m edical m alpractice statute of repose. OCG A § 9-3-73 (a ) provides that the dis abilities and exceptions of A rticle 5, includin g the unrepresented estate statute, are applicable to actions for m edical m alpractice , but does not gi ve any indication that tho se dis ab ili tie s and e xc ep tio ns a ppl y to the statut e of

r ep ose . T o th e co ntr ar

y , it is we ll settled that even the Article 5 e xception o f “ fraud under O CGA§ 9-3-96 does not tol l the statut e of

r ep ose . ” E se ne r v. K ins ey , sup ra a t 23 .8

T he unr ep re se nte d e state statut e doe s no t t oll the m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e statut e of r ep ose by

vir tue of O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( d) . T ha t st at ute spe ci fi es that no thi ng i n OCG A § 9-3-71 (a ) or ( b) “ shall be construed to repea l Code Section 9-3-73, w hich sh al l b e d eem edto ap pl y

eit he r to th e ap pl ic ab le st atut es of l im it at io n o r rep os e.” OCG A § 9-3-71 (d). Beca use of the disjunctive nature of this language, the fac t that O CG A § 9- 3- 92 a

ppl ie s to the statut e of

li m itatio ns b y

w ay of O CG A § 9- 3- 73 (a) does not m ean that it applies to the statu te of re pose as well. The legislature * s int en tio n ine na ct ing O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( d) is ill ustrate d by it s c re at ionof

se parate m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e statut es of li m itatio n inO CG A § 9- 3- 73 ( b) and s ta tut es of re pose in O CG A § 9- 3- 73 ( c) w ithr es pe ct to m ino rs and l eg al ly

inc om pe te nt pe rs ons. O CG A § 9- 3- 73 ( d) . S ubse ct ion( b) of O CG A § 9- 3- 73 m odi fi es the lim itations period and, theref ore, clear ly

does not app ly

to the statute of repose. Su bse ct ion( c) m odi fi es the pe ri od o f re pose and, thu s, obv iou sly doe s no t a

ppl y to the statut e of

li m itatio ns. A cc or din gly , O CG A § 9- 3- 71( d) doe s no t r equir e that any part of O CG A § 9- 3- 73, inc lud ing sub se ct ion( a) , be sim ult an eo usl y

appl ie d to both statutes of lim itation andof repose. Si nc e tol lin g of

the m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e statut e of r ep ose is not

r equir ed by ei the r O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( d) or O CG A § 9- 3- 73 ( a) , and w oul d c ontrave ne the m an da tor y langua ge of

O CG A § 9- 3- 71 ( b) , a s w el l a s th e ac ce pte d j udi ci al and9

le gis la tiv e dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n st at ute s of li m itatio n and o f re pose , w e hol d th at the unrepresented estate statute does not to ll the statute of ultim ate re pose in m edical m al pr ac tic e ac tio ns. S ee Wri ght v. Ro bin son, sup ra

a t 84 5- 846 (1 ); L an gle y

v. Pi er ce , 438 S E 2d 2 42 ( S. C. 199 3) ; D eL ay v. Maratho n L eT our

ne auS al es and Se rv ic e Co . , 630 P 2d 8 36 ( O re . 198 1) . T he re fo re , w e an sw er the c er tif ie d qu es tio n in the negative.

Ce rtified que stion answ ered . All th e Justices c oncur.