FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly 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

M ay 21, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 07 3. GRI FFI N v . TH E EM ORY CLI N IC I N C. et al.
G O B E IL , J ud ge. J o sep h Grif

f in filed su it against The Emo ry Clinic , Inc

. (“ Emo ry” ), D av id R. Pro p p , M

. D

. , and his med ic al assistant, A nna S m i t h ( c o l l e ct i v e ly, the “ D ef end ants” ), alleging negligenc e based o n inj u ries he s u f f ered f ro m a f a ll d uring a med ic al v isit. The trial c ou rt granted t he D ef end ants’ mo tio n to d ismiss, o n the basis that Grif f in f ailed
to f ile an exp e rt af

f id av it i n c o mp lianc e w ith OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 9
. 1 (a), ev en tho u gh his

c o mp laint alleged pro f

essio nal malp r ac tic e . Grif f in no w a p p eals, a rgu ing in interrelated enu meratio ns o f erro r that the trial c o u rt erred in granting the mo tio n to d ismiss bec au s e S m i t h i s no t a lic ensed m e d ic al p ro fessio nal f o r w ho m an exp ertaf

f id av it u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9. 1 (a) is requ ired

. Fo r the reaso ns that f o llo w , w e af

f irm in p art and rev erse in p art.

A mo tio n to d ismiss f

o r f ailu re to state a c laim u p o n w hic h relief may be granted sho u ld no t be su stained u nless (1 ) the allegatio ns o f the
c o mp laint d isc lo s e w ith certainty that the c laimant wo u ld no t b e entitled to relief und er any state o f p ro v able f ac ts asserted in s u p p o r t thereo f; a nd (2) the mo v ant establishes that the c laimant c o u ld no t p o ssibly intro d u c e ev id enc e w ithin the f

r amew o rk o f the c omp laint su f fic ient to w arrant a gran t o f t he relief so u ght. If , w ithin the f

ramew o rk of the c o mp laint,
ev id enc e may be intro d u c ed w hic h w ill su stain a grant o f the relief so u ght b y t he c laimant, the co mp laint is su f f ic ient and a mo tio n to d is m i s s sho u ld be denied

. I n dec id ing a mo tio n to d ismiss, all p lead ings are to be
c o nstru ed mo st f

a v orably to the p arty w ho f iled them, and all d ou bts regard ing s u c h p lead ings mu st be reso lv ed in the f iling p arty’ s f

av o r. On ap p eal, a trial c o u r t’ s ru ling o n a mo tio n to d ismiss f o r f ailu re to state a c laim f o r w hic h relief

may be granted is rev iew ed d e no v o.
E as ts i d e R eco v ery, LLC v . C

a lho u n , 36 8 Ga. Ap p . 385, 386 (89 0 SE2d 1 35) (2023) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). So v iew ed , the rec ord sho ws t h a t s i n ce 2 0 0 5 , G r i f fi n h a s b e e n w heelc hair- bo u nd and is n o n- w eight- b e aring at the b aseline. On Sep tember 3, 2020, G rif f in v isited Emo r y f o r a regu lar med ic al examinatio n w ith D r. P r o p p , h i s lo ng- term p hysic ian. B e f o re bein g s e e n b y D r . Pro p p , G rif f in w as tak en by Smith, Dr. Pro p p ’ s med ic al
2assistant, to get w e ighed

. Grif f in w as instru cted by Smith t o get o u t o f his w heelc hair

w itho u t assistanc e and to c limb o nto a w eighing mac hine. W hile trying t o get o nto the

mac hine, Grif

f in f e ll a nd s u ff

ered inj uries, inc lu d ing a f emu r f r ac tu re in his right leg. On A u gu st 22, 20 22, Grif fin f iled the instant c o mp laint, a lleging that the D ef e nd ants w ere negl i g e n t in c au sing his inj u ries bec au se they “ k new o r o ught to hav e k no w n that [Grif

f in,] b ased on his med ic al c o nd itio n and age[, ] s h o u l d hav e been

w eighed w ith a mac hine th at f its his c ond itio n and [/]o r aid ed w hile c limbing and stand ing o n a w e ighing mac hine f o r his w eight to be tak e n. ” G rif f in d id no t a ttac h an exp ert af fid av it, p u rsu ant to OCGA § 9

- 1 1 -9
. 1 (a), to his c o mp laint. T he D ef end ants f iled an answ er, and also mo v ed to d ismiss the c o mp laint d u e to Grif f in’ s f ailu re to f ile
an exp e rt af

f id av it in su p p o r t o f

his p ro f essio nal malp rac tic e c laim. A t o ral argu ment, Grif

f in, t hro u gh c o unsel, ad mitted that his f all w as no t the

resu lt o f trip p ing o r slip p ing. Rathe r , h e a l leged that he f ell “bec au se based o n [ his]

c o nd itio n, he sho u ld n’ t hav e been t o l d to rise f r o m his w heelc hair w hen [the D ef e nd ants k new ] t hat he c an’ t d o that. ” The t rial c o urt granted the mo tio n to d i smiss, c o nc lu d ing that Grif f in w as requ ired to f

ile an exp ert af

f id av it as his c l a i m

so u nd ed in p ro f

essio nal negligenc e based o n his c ontentio n t hat “ bec a u se [the]

3D ef

end ants k new o f his med ic al c o nd itio n and med ic al limitatio ns, they sh o u l d n o t hav e instru c ted him to stand u nassisted

. ” The instant ap peal f o llo w ed

. Grif f in argu es that the trial c o u rt erred in granting the D ef end ants’ mo tio n to d ismiss f or f ailu re to inc lu d e an exp e rt af f id av it bec au se Smith, the med ic al assistant

w ho se a lleged negligenc e c au s ed his inj u ries, is no t a lic ensed p ro f essio nal f o r w ho m

an exp ert af

f id av it u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 is r equ ired

. I n a related c laim o f erro r, he
asserts that the t rial c o urt f ailed to c o nsid er S m i t h ’ s c lassif ic a tio n as a no n- lic ensed med ic al p ro f

essio nal b e f

o re d ismissing the c o mp laint. A t this stage of t he p ro c eed ing,

w e agree. A s an initial matter, the D ef end ants highlight in their ap p ellate brief that Grif f in f ailed t o raise his argu ment abo u t Smith’ s statu s a s a no n- lic ensed med ic al
p ro f essio nal in the trial c o u rt. N ev ertheless, OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 imp o ses an initial plead ing requ irement
o n t h e p laintif

f in a malp rac tic e ac t io n, and in rev iew ing the grant o f a mo ti o n t o d i s m i ss f

or failu re t o state a c laim, it is the d u ty o f the ap p ellate c o u rt t o c onstru e the p lead ings in the light mo st f av o rable to the ap p ellant w ith all d o u bts reso lv ed in ap p ellant’ s f av o r.

4Pro cter v . Gwi n nett Pu lmo n a ry Gro u

p , P. C

. , 31 2 Ga. A p p . 486 , 487 ( 1 ) (7 1 8 SE2d 86 0) (201 1 ) (c itatio ns and pu nc tu atio n o mitted ). A nd a mo tio n t o d ismiss based u p o n the lac k o f an exp e rt af

fid av it “ is o ne f

o r f ailu re to s t a t e a c laim u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 1 2 (b) (6 ). ” Z

epha n i a h v . Ga

. C

l i n i c, P. C

. , 350 Ga. A p p . 408, 41 0 (829 SE2d 448) (201 9 ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) ; H o llo wa y v . N orths i de Ho s p. , 230 G a. A p p . 37 1 , 37 1 -37 2 (49 6 SE2d 51 0) ( 1 99 8) (d ismissing claim w here the p lai n ti f f s a lleged the

nu rses “ sho u ld hav e k no w n t hat she was s u bj ec t to falling” b ec au se the c laim

amo u nted to p ro f

essio nal negligenc e and the plaintif f s’ f ailu r e to attac h a p ro fessio nal af f id av it mand a ted d ismissal). As a resu lt, “ it w as inc u mbent up o n the D ef end ants to establish bef

o re the trial c ou rt that [Grif f in] f ailed t o state a c laim, and o u r rev ersal is b a s e d u p o n o u r ap p lic atio n o f t he c o rrec t stand ard o f rev iew o f [Grif f in’ s] c o mp la i n t . ” Pro cter , 31 2 Ga. A pp . at 487 (1 ) ( f o o tno te o m itted ). See also Fo rd v . Fo rd , 349 Ga. A p p . 45, 47 (2) (a) ( 825 SE2d 449 ) (201 9 ) ( “ Where a def end ant o btains the d ismissal o f an

ac tio n fo r f

ailu re to s tate a c laim w itho u t d emo nstrating t he statu to r y p rerequ isites f o r that d ismissal, the p laintif f may assert that f

a ilu re o n ap p eal u sing a sp e c if ic argu ment

no t mad e to the trial c ou rt. ” ) (p hysic al p rec ed ent o nly).

5I n his c o mp laint, Grif f in d id no t list o ut s ep arate c laims o r allegatio ns against

eac h d ef end ant. Rather, he generally alleged that the “ D ef end ants k new o r o u ght to hav e k no w n that [Grif

f in,] based o n his med ic al c o nd itio n and a ge[,] sho u ld hav e been

w eighed w ith a mac hine t hat f its his c o nd itio n and [/]o r a i d ed w hile c limbing and stand ing o n a w eighing mac hine f o r his w eight to be tak e n. ” The D ef end ants highlight that Grif fin’ s c o m p laint against the D ef end ants “ in its entirety so u nd s in p ro fessio nal negligenc e,” and theref

o re, he w as requ ired to f

ile an exp ert af

f id av it. H o w ev er, in hi s c o mp laint, Grif f in a sserted that Smith, a m ed ic al assistant,
p erf o rmed negligent a c ts — namely, requ irin g Grif f in to c limb o nto the w eighing sc ale

u nassisted d esp ite his k no w n p hysic al limitatio ns — w hic h resu lted in his f all and

su bsequ ent inj u r ies. OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (a) requ ires the c o ntemp o raneo u s f iling o f an exp ert af f id av it o n ly in p ro fessio nal malp rac tic e c laims asserted against c ertain
p ro f essio nals, and “ m ed ic al assistant” d o es no t f all into any o f the c atego ries o f
p ro f essio nals enu m erated w ithin the Co d e sec tio n. 1 See Pa ttma n v . M a n n , 307 Ga.

1 See OCGA § 9- 11

- 9. 1 ( g) (li s t i n g a r c hitec ts, atto rneys at law , au d io lo gists, c ertif ied pu blic ac co u ntants, c hiro p rac to rs, c linic al s o ci a l wo r k e r s , d e n t i s t s , d i e titians, land su r v eyo rs, marriage and family therap ists, med ic al d o cto rs, nu rses, o c c u p atio nal therap ist s, o p to metrists, osteo p athic p hysic ians, p harmac ists, p hysic al therap ists, p hys i c ians’ a ssistants, p o diatrists, p ro fessio nal c o u nselo r s , p ro fessio nal engineers, p syc ho lo gists, r ad io lo gic al te c hnic ians, resp irato ry t herap ists, s p eec h- langu age 6A p p . 41 3, 41 7 n. 1 3 (7 01 SE2d 232) (201 0) (no ting that the “af f id av it requ irement d o es

no t ap ply to any ac ts c o mmitted by [the lab tec hno lo gist], w ho is no t r ec ogniz ed as a

‘ pro f essio nal’ u nd er Geo r gia law ” ); S e mb ler Atla n t a D ev . I, LLC v. URS

/ D a mes & Mo o re, In c. , 26 8 Ga. A p p. 7 , 9 (6 01 SE2d 39 7) (2004) (exp laining that, by its sp ec if ic terms, OCGA § 9

- 1 1- 9
. 1 (a) limits t h e exp ert af f id av it requ irement to p ro fessio nal malp rac tic e su its a g a i n s t members o f o ne of the e nu merated p ro f essio ns o r the
emp lo yer o f same w hen th e e mp lo yer’ s liability is p red ic ated o n the p ro fessio nal negligenc e o f

su c h emp lo y ee). Thu s, c o nstru ing the allegatio ns o f the c o mp laint in the light mo st f av o rable to Grif f in, as w e mu st o n a m otio n to d ismiss, his c o m p laint c o u ld be read to s tate a c laim f o r o rd inary negligenc e against Smith, a med ic al assistant. A nd med ic al assistant d o es

no t f all w ithin a ny o f t he c a tego ries o f p ro f essio nals enu merated in OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (g). Co n s e q u e n tl y , he w as no t requ ired t o f ile an exp e rt af

f id av it in ord er to state a

c laim against Smith. See Pro cter , 31 2 Ga. A p p . at 488 (1 ) (rev ersing dismissal o f ac tio n

o n t h e b a sis that plaintif

f w as no t requ ired , u nd er OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (a), to f ile a n
p atho lo gists, o r v eterinarians); s ee also Gi lli s v . Go o d ga me , 26 2 G a. 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 (41 4 SE2d 1 9 7 ) (1 9 9 2) (“ the af

f id av it requ irements o f [OCGA ] § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 ap ply o nly t o t h o s e p ro f essio ns rec o gniz ed und er Geo rgia law ,” inc l u d i n g the pred ec esso r statu te to OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 9
. 1 )

. 7exp ert af

f id av it in su p p o rt o f negligenc e c laim a gainst a med ic al d ef end ant w ho m she

c harac teriz ed as a “ tec hnic ian,” giv en that “ tec hnic ian” d id no t f all w ithin any o f the

c atego ries o f

p ro f essio nals enu merated in OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (g)). The D e f end ants maintain that, ev en if G rif f in d id no t need to p r o v id e an exp ert

a f f i d a v i t as to Smith, Grif

f in’ s c o mp laint d o es no t allege that either Emo ry o r D r. Pro p p are liable fo r Smith’ s negligenc e in c au sing Grif f in’ s inj u ries u nd e r a t heo ry o f
resp o nd eat su p erio r o r v ic ario u s liability. H o w ev er, in his c o mp laint, Grif f in alleged that Smith is D r . Pro p p ’s med ic al assistant and w as ac t ing u nd er D r. Pro p p ’ s

“ negligent instru c tio n. ” 2 I mp o rtantly, “ [a ] c o m p l aint is no t requ ired to set f o rth a

c au se o f ac tio n, bu t need o nly set f orth a claim f

o r relief

. If , w ithin the f

ramew o rk o f the c o mp laint, ev id e nc e may be intro d u c ed w hic h w ill su stain a grant o f r e lief to the
p laintif f , the c o mp laint is su f

f ic ient. ” S u l

ej ma n v . Ma ri

n e llo , 21 7 Ga. A p p. 31 9 , 320 (2) ( 4 5 7 SE2d 251 ) (1 9 9 5) (c itatio n and pu nc t u atio n omitted ). See D epo s ito ry Tru s t a n d C lea ri n g C o rp. v . Jo n e

s , 348 Ga. A p p. 47 4, 47 7 (1 ) ( 8 2 3 S E 2 d 558) ( 201 9 ) (“ the

o bj ec tiv e o f the Civ il Prac tic e A c t is t o av o id tec hnic alities and to r equ ire o nly a sho rt and p lain statement o f the c laim that w ill giv e the d ef end ant f a i r n o t i c e o f w hat the

2 I n their ap p ellate brief

, the D ef end ants d e sc ribe t hat Smith w as “ac ting at the d irec tio n o f

D r . Pro p p and Emo ry. ”
8c laim is and a general ind ic atio n o f t h e typ e o f litigatio n inv o lv ed ; the d isc o v ery

p ro c ess bears the b urd en of filling in d etails ” ) ( c i t atio n, p u nc tu atio n and emp hasis

o mitted )

. A dd itio nally, “ [t]here are instanc es in w hic h ac tio ns perf o r med by a p ro f essio nal are nev ertheless no t p ro f essio nal ac ts c o nstitu ting p ro fes s i o nal malp rac tic e , bu t, rather, are ac ts o f simp le negligenc e w hic h w o u ld no t requ ire p ro o f by exp ert ev id enc e . ” Bro w n v . Ti ft C o u n ty Ho sp. Au th. , 280 Ga. A p p . 847 , 850 (6 35 SE2d 1 84) (2006 ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted )

. W here the p ro f

essio nal’ s alleged negligenc e requ ir e s t he exerc ise o f p ro f essio nal s k ill and j ud gment to c omp ly with a stand ard o f c o n d u c t
w ithin the pro f

essio nal’ s area of exp ertise, the ac tio n states p ro fessio nal negligenc e . B u t w h e re the a llegatio ns o f negligenc e d o no t inv olv e p ro f e s s i o nal sk ill a nd ju d gment, the ac tio n states o rd inary negligenc e. W hether a c o m p laint a lleges o rd inary o r pro f essio nal negligenc e is a qu estio n o f

law f o r the c o u rt.
Hea lth Mgmt. As

s o c. , In c. v . Ba z

emo re , 286 Ga. A p p . 285, 287 (6 48 SE2d 7 49 ) (2007 ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu a tio n o m i t ted ). See, e. g. , H i llha v e n Reha b i

li ta ti o n & C o n v a les cen t C tr. v. Pa tters o n , 1 9 5 G a . A p p . 7 0, 7 1

- 7 2 (2) (39 2 SE2d 557 ) (1 9 90) ( f ailu re to assist
p atient in getting in and o u t of bed in w eak ened co nd itio n, if t r u e , co nstitu ted o rd inary negligenc e); C

a n d ler G e n . Ho s

p . v . McN orri ll , 1 82 Ga. A p p . 1 07 , 1 1 0 (2) (354 SE2d

987 2) (1 9 87 ) (“ [ T]he saf e mo v ement o f ap p e llee fro m the stretc her o r c asting table to the w heelc hair w as m erely an ac t o f relativ e p h y sic al strength and d exterity rather than

an ac t r equ iring the exerc ise o f exp ert med ic al j u d gment. ”). Ac c o rd ingly, we rev e r se the trial c o u rt’ s d ismissal o f Grif f in’ s c laims against Smith a nd any d eriv a tiv e c laims against Emo ry and /o r D r. Pro p p all eging o r d inary negligenc e f o r f ailu re to f

ile an exp ert af f id av it u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 1 -9
. 1. See Pro c ter , 31 2 Ga. A p p . at 488 (1 ). To the extent Grif

f in’ s co mp laint alleges a c laim fo r p ro f essio nal neg l i g e nc e against D r. Pro p p, a lic enc ed health c are pro f e ssio nal u nd er OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (g), o r against Emo ry as v ic ario usly liable f o r p ro f essio nal negligenc e, the t rial c o u r t p ro p erly granted the D ef

end ants’ mo tio n to d i smiss d u e to Grif fin’ s f ailu re to f ile an exp ert af f id av i t a s r equ ired by OCGA § 9

- 1 1- 9. 1 (a). See Ba z emo re, 286 Ga. A pp . at 286 (W hen a plaintif

f f iles a law su it against a lic ensed health- c are f ac ility “ based o n a c laim that the f ac i l i t y is v ic ario u sly liable f o r t he p ro f

e ssio nal malp r a ctic e o f a health c are p ro f essio nal lic ensed by the State o f Geo rgia and listed in [ OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (g)], the
p laintif f is requ ired to f

ile an exp ert af

f id av it w ith the c o mp laint in ac c o r da n c e w i th the requ irements o f OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 9
. 1 (a). ” ).

10Ju dgmen t a ffi rmed in pa rt a n d rev ers ed i n pa rt. Ba rn e

s , P. J. , a n d Pi

pki n , J. ,
co n cu r .

11