THI RD DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, and GOBEI L, J.

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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 26, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 86 3 . HAYES et al . v . HINES et al

.

E LLI N G T O N , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

In t h i s m ed i cal m al p ract i ce act i o n

, t h e Ap p el l ees

, J effrey Hi n es

, M

. D. (“ Dr.

Hi n es ”) an d W el l st ar Co bb Gy n eco l o g i st s

, LLC, W el l st ar M ed ical Gro up

, LLC, an d

W el l s t ar Heal t h Sy s t em

, In c. (“ W el l s t ar d efen d an t s ”), m o v ed t o di s m i s s t h os e cl ai m s

rai s ed b y t he A p p el l an t

, M i ch ael Hay es

, i n hi s cap aci t y as t h e ad m in i s t rat o r o f t h e

es t at e o f Eri k a Hay es

, h i s d e ceas ed wi fe. 1 Th e t ri al co u rt

, u p o n co n v ers i on o f t h e

m o ti o n t o d i s m i s s to a m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju dg m en t

, gran t ed p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o Ap p el lees o n t h e g ro u n d t h at th e e s t at e’ s cl ai m s were b arred b y t h e

s t at u te o f l i m i t a t i o n. Ap p el lan t co n t en d s o n ap p eal t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in

1 Ap p el lan t ’ s co m

p l ai n t

, as am en d ed , al so rai s ed cl ai m s ag ai n s t Ap p el l ees in

h i s cap aci t y

as Eri k a Hay es ’ s s u rv i v i n g s p ou s e.g ran t i n g Ap p el l ees ’ m o t i on fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t b ecau s e (1 ) t h e t ri al co u rt

erred i n h o ld i n g t h at Ap p el l an t co u l d n o t s ho w a “ n ew in ju ry ” ex cep t i o n t o t h e two

y ear s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i on es t ab li s h ed b y OCGA § 9 -3 -7 1 (a), (2 ) t h e t ri al co u rt erred

i n fi n d i n g t h at th e to l l i n g p ro v i s i o n s o f OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2 di d n o t ap p ly t o t h is cas e, an d

(3 ) t h e t ri al co u rt erred in co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e cl ai m s ag ai n st Dr

. H i n es

, wh i ch

A p p el l an t rai s ed i n h i s s eco n d am en d ed co m p l ai n t

, d i d n o t rel at e b ack t o t h e f i l i n g

o f t h e o ri g i n a l c o m

p lai n t b y o perat i o n o f OCGA § 9-1 1 -1 5 (c). 2 W e rev ers e fo r t h e

reas on s s et fo rt h b el o w.

“ Th e s tan d ard o f rev i ew fo r an ap p eal fro m a g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s d e

n o v o

, vi ewi ng t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab le t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y

, to

d et erm i n e wh et h er a g en u i n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact rem ai n s o r wh et h er t h e m o v i n g

p art y i s en t i t led t o ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw.” (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ol l er v. Ro ckd a l e

Ho s pi t a l, LLC , 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 9 1 , 5 9 2 (8 0 4 SE2 d 1 6 6) (2 01 7 ).

So v i ewed

, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h e fo l l owi n g

. In Au g u s t 2 0 1 3

, Eri k a H a yes

(“ Hay es ”) s o ug ht t reat m en t fro m Dr. Vi d y a So u n d ara r ajan

, an OB/ G YN, fo r

ab n orm al b l eed i n g an d a l arg e fi b ro id m as s i n h er u t eru s . Th ey d i s cu s s ed t reat m en t

o p t i o n s

, i n cl u d i ng an ab d o m i n al h y s t erect om y an d a ro b o ti c h y s t ere ct o m y

. Dr.

2 Ap p el l ees ’ cro ss -ap p eal i n Cas e No . A1 8 A0 8 6 4 h as b een wi t h d rawn

.

2So u n d ararajan referred Hay es t o g y neco l o g ical o n co lo g i s t Dr. J effrey H i n e s t o

ev al u at e wh et h er t h e ro b o t i c p ro ced u re was ap p ro p ri at e fo r Hay es

.

Aft er Dr. H in es rev i ewed u l t ras ou n d an d MRI rep o rt s an d th en p ers o n al l y m et

wi t h Hay es o n No v em

b er 1 3

, 2 0 1 3

, h e rep o rt ed t o Dr. So u nd arara j a n t h a t h e h ad a

v ery l o w s u s p i ci o n t h at t h e fi b ro i d s were m al i g nan t. Acco rd in g t o Dr. So u n d ararajan

,

i f D r. H i n es h ad b een co n cern ed t h at t h e fi b ro i d s h ad b een can cero u s

, he wo u l d h av e

p erfo rm ed t h e s urg ery b ecau s e “ h e’ s t h e can cer s u rg eo n

. ” D r

. So u n d ararajan was

s at i s fi ed t h at Dr. Hi n es “ s en di ng t h e p at i en t b ack t o [h er]

. . . was hi s way o f s ay i n g

d o t h e h y s t erect o m

y as y o u ch oo s e fi t .”

On Decem

b er 1 3

, 2 0 1 3

, Dr. So u n d ararajan p erfo rm ed a ro b o ti c h y s t erect o m y

o n Hay es d u ri n g wh ich Hay es ’ s u t eru s an d fi b ro i ds were cu t u p, o r “ m o rcel l at ed ,”

rat h er t h an rem ov ed in t act

. An an al y s i s o f s am pl es o b tai n ed d u ri ng t he s u rg ery

i d en t i fi ed g rad e t h ree l ei om y o s arco m a, a fo rm o f so ft t i ss u e c a n cer. Fo ll o wi n g t h e

s u rg ery

, an d fo r s ev eral m o n t h s t h ereaft er, CT an d PET s can s w ere n eg at i v e fo r

can cer. On Oct o b er 2 4

, 2 01 4

, ho wev er, a s creen i ng s ho wed t he p res en ce o f p el v i c

t u m o rs

, an d a b i o p sy co n fi r m e d a recu rren ce o f h ig h g rad e l ei o m y o s arco m a.

Acco rd in g t o th e affi d av i t of Dr

. E d m u n d S. Pet ri l l i

, a p h y si ci an b o ard cert i fi ed in

g y n eco lo g y an d g y n eco lo gi c on co l og y

, t h e m o rcel l at i n g o f Hay es ’ s u t eru s cau s ed t h e

3s p i l l ag e an d s p read o f h er m al i g n an cy th ro u g h o ut h er ab d o m i n al -p el v i c c a v i t y,

wh ereas t h e can cer h a d p r e v i o u s l y b een l ocal i zed wi t h in h er u teru s

. Hay es d i ed o f

m et as t at i c u t eri n e can cer o n M ay 1 9, 2 0 1 5

.

A ppe l l an t was ap p o i n t ed b y t h e p ro b at e co u rt as ad m i ni s t rat o r of H a y e s ’ s e sta te

o n Decem

b er 9

, 2 01 5

, an d h e fi l ed t h e u n d erl y i n g l aws u i t ag ai n st Dr. So u nd ararajan

an d n u m ero u s o t h er defen d an t s t h at s am e day

. 3 A p p el l an t as s ert ed a wro n g fu l d eat h

cl ai m i n h i s cap aci t y as H ay es ’ s s u rv i v i n g sp o u s e, an d h e as s ert ed th e es t at e’ s cl ai m s

fo r p re-d eat h d am ag es i n h i s rep res en t at i ve cap aci t y

. Th e o ri g in al co m p l ai n t n am ed

“ J o h n Do es No s. 1 -5 ” as d efen d a n t s b u t d i d n o t n am e Dr. Hi n es as a d efen d an t

.

Ap p el l an t fi l ed an am en d ed co m p l ai n t i n M arch 2 0 1 6

, wh i ch co n t i n u ed t o a s s ert

cl ai m s ag ai n s t t h e J o h n Do es

.

Ap p el l an t fi l ed a seco n d am en d ed co m pl ai n t o n A p ri l 2 1

, 2 0 17

, wh i ch n am ed

Dr. Hi n es as a d efen d an t an d wh i ch s u bs t i t u ted Dr. H in es fo r a J oh n Do e. Th e s eco n d

am en d ed co m

pl ai n t al so a l l e g e d t h at Dr. Hi n es was an em pl o y ee an d ag en t o f t h e

W el l s t ar d efen dan t s

. At tach ed t o t h e am en ded co m pl ai n t was t h e affi d av it o f W i l l i am

3 Th e co m

p l ai n t was fi led i n t he St at e Co u rt o f Gwi n net t Co u nt y b as ed o n t h e

res i den cy o f d efen d an t s as s o ci at ed wi t h t h e m an u fact u re o f t h e m o rcel l at io n d ev i ce

u s ed i n Hay es ’ s s u rg ery

, an d t h e cas e was l at er tran s ferred t o t h e St at e Co u rt o f Co b b

Co u n t y aft er Ap p el l an t s et t l ed h i s cl ai m s ag ai n st t h o se d efen d an t s

.

4Irv i n, M

. D., a g y neco l o gi c o n co l o g i s t, wh o o p i n ed t h a t Dr. Hi n es vi o lat ed t h e

s t an d ard of care b y

, am on g ot h er t h i n g s

, i m p ro p erl y cl as s i fy in g Hay es as a “ v ery l o w

s u s p i ci o n fo r l ei o m

y o m a s arco m a.” Dr. Irv i n was al s o o f t h e o p in i o n th at

, to a

reas on ab l e d eg ree o f m ed i c a l c e r t ai n t y

, Dr. H i nes ’ s “ fai l u res cau s ed o r co n t ri b u t ed

t o th e s p read o f M rs

. Hay es ’ o ccu l t m al i g n an cy an d u l ti m at e m et as t as i s o f h er u t eri n e

can cer, t h ereaft er l ead in g t o a s u b s t an t i al l y red u ced l i k el i h o o d o f s u rv i v al .”

Fo l l owi n g t h e fi l i ng o f t h e s eco n d am en ded c o m p l ai n t

, A p p el l ees an s wered

,

as s ert ed t h e affi rm at i v e defen s e t h at t he es t at e’ s cl ai m s were b arred b y t h e t wo -y ear

s t at u te o f li m it at i o n

, an d m o ved t o d i s m i s s t h e es t at e’ s cl ai m s o n t h at g ro u n d

. 4

Ap p el l an t res p o n d ed t h a t t h e es t at e’ s cl ai m s were t im el y b ecau s e (i ) Hay es was

as y m p o t om at i c of m et as t at i c can cer u n t i l O c t o b er 2 4

, 2 01 4

, an d a “ new i n ju ry ”

o ccu rred at t h at t i m e fo r p urp os es o f t h e co m m en cem en t o f t h e s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o n s

,

an d (i i ) b y op erat i o n o f OCGA § 9 -3 -3 2

, t h e ru n n i n g o f t h e s tat u t e was t ol l ed b et ween

Hay es ’ s d eat h an d Ap p el l an t’ s ap p o i n t m e n t a s ad m i n i s t rat o r o f h er es t at e, wh i ch

p l aced t h e ex p irat io n o f t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n i n May 2 0 1 7

. A p p e l lan t al s o

4 Th e A p p el l ees d id n o t m o v e t o d i s m i s s Ap pel l an t ’ s wro n g fu l deat h cl ai m

, fo r

wh i ch t h e l i m i t at i on p eri o d b eg an t o ru n at t h e t im e o f Hay es ’ s d eat h

. See

W i l l ia ms v. Dep t

. o

f Hu ma n Res o u r ces

, 2 7 2 Ga

. 6 24

, 6 26 (5 32 SE2 d 4 01 ) (2 0 0 0 );

Leg um v. Cr o u ch , 2 0 8 Ga. Ap p . 1 8 5 , 1 8 7 (2 ) (4 3 0 SE2 d 3 6 0 ) (1 9 9 3 ).

5co n ten d ed t h at

, s ho u l d th e t ri al co u rt d i s ag ree t h at t h e cau s e of act i o n a r o s e o n

Oct o b er 2 4 , 2 0 1 4

, t h e es t at e’ s cl ai m s were n ev ert h el es s t i m el y b ecau s e t h ey rel at ed

b ack t o t h e d at e o f fi l i n g o f t h e o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t u po n ap pl i cat i o n o f OCGA § 9 -1 1

-

1 5 (c).

Ap p el l ees ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m is s was l at er co n v e r t e d t o a m o ti o n fo r p art i al

s u m m ary ju d g m en t wi th t h e co n s en t o f t h e Ap pel l an t

. Fo ll owi n g a h eari n g

, t h e t ri al

co u rt fo u n d t h at (i ) t h e “ n ew i n ju ry ” ex cep t i o n di d n o t ap p ly

, (i i) t h e l im i t at io n p eri o d

was n o t to l l ed u n d er OCGA § 9 -3 -3 2

, an d (i i i ) t h e s eco n d am en d ed co m pl ai n t d i d n ot

rel at e b ack t o t h e dat e o f t h e o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t fo r p u rp o ses o f O CGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c).

Th e t ri al co u rt t herefo re g ran t ed Ap pel l ees ’ m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t

.

1

. A p p el l an t co nt en d s t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred i n fi n d i n g t hat

, as a m at t er o f

l aw, he co u l d n o t dem o n s t rat e a “ n ew i n ju ry ” t h at wo u l d p ro v i d e an ex cep t i o n t o t h e

t wo -y ear s t at u te o f l i m i t at io n. OCGA § 9 -3 -7 1 (a) req u i res t h at “ an act i o n fo r m ed i cal

m al p ra c t i c e s h al l b e b ro u g h t wi t h i n t wo y ears aft er th e dat e o n wh ich an in ju ry o r

d eat h ari si n g fro m a n eg li g en t o r wro n gfu l act o r o m i ss i o n o ccu rred .” In cas es wh ere

t h e al l eg ed ly t ort i ou s co nd u ct was a fai lu re t o co rrect l y di ag n os e a p at i en t ’ s m ed i cal

co n di t i o n

, th e “ i nju ry ” referen ced b y OCGA § 9 -3 -7 1 (a) g en eral l y occu rs at t h e t i m e

o f m i s d i ag no s i s

. See Amu v. B a r n es

, 2 8 3 Ga. 5 4 9

, 5 5 1 (6 6 2 SE2 d 1 1 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ). In

6s u ch cas es

, “ [t ] h e m i sd i ag n o s i s i t s el f i s t h e i n ju ry an d n o t t h e s u b s eq u en t d i s co v ery

o f t h e p ro per d i ag no s i s [an d] t h e t wo -y ear s t at u te o f l i m i t at i o n s b e g i n s t o ru n

s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o n t h e d at e t h at t h e d o ct or n eg l i g en t l y fai l ed t o di ag n o s e t h e

co n d i t i o n [.] ” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

. A “ n ew i n ju ry ” ex cep t i o n to

g en eral ru l e ap p l ies , h o wev er,

i n cas es i n wh i ch t h e p at i en t ’ s i n ju ry ari si n g fro m t h e m i s d i a g n o s i s

o ccu rs s u b s eq u en tl y

, gen eral l y wh en a rel at i v el y b en i g n o r t r e at ab l e

p recu rs o r co n d i t i on

, wh i ch i s l eft u nt reat ed b ecau s e of t he m i s d i ag n o s i s

,

l ead s t o t h e d ev el o p m en t o f a m o re d eb i l it at i n g o r l es s t reat ab l e

co n d i t i o n

. Th u s

, t h e del et eri o u s res u l t o f a d oct o r’ s fai l u re t o arri v e a t

t h e co rrect d iag n o s i s i n t h es e cas es is n o t p ai n o r eco n o m i c l os s th at th e

p at i en t s u ffers b eg i n n i ng i m m ed i at el y an d co n t i nu i n g u n t i l t h e o ri g i nal

m ed i cal p ro b lem i s p ro p erl y d i ag no s ed an d t reat ed

. Rat h er, t h e i n ju ry i s

t h e s u bs eq u en t d ev el o p m en t o f t h e o t h er co n di t i o n

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n om it t ed .) Cl ea vel a n d v. G a n no n

, 28 4 Ga. 3 7 6

, 3 77 (1 ) (6 6 7

SE2 d 3 6 6 ) (2 0 0 8). “ [T] h e t ri g g er fo r co m m en cem en t o f t h e s t at u t e o f li m i t at i o ns i s

t h e d at e t h at t he p at i en t recei v ed t h e ‘ n ew i n ju ry ,’ wh i ch i s d et erm i n ed t o b e an

o ccu rren ce o f s y m

p t o m s fo l l o wi n g an as y m

p t o m at i c p eri o d.” Amu v. Ba rn es

, 2 8 3 Ga.

5 4 9 , 5 1 3 (6 6 2 SE2 d 11 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ). See W a r d v. Ber

gen , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p . 2 56 , 2 5 9 (6 2 6

SE2 d 2 2 4 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (“ [W ] h en a m i s d i ag n os i s res u l t s i n s u b s eq u en t i n ju ry t h at i s

7d i ffi cu l t o r i m p o s s i bl e t o d at e p reci s el y

, t h e s t a t ut e o f l i m i t at i on ru n s fro m t h e d at e

s y m p to m s at t ri b u t ab le t o t h e n ew i n ju ry are m an i fes t t o t h e p l ai n t i ff.”) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). As t h e d efen s e o f t h e s tat u te o f l i m i t at i on i s an affi rm at i v e

d efen s e fo r p u r p o s es o f OCGA § 9 -1 1 -8 (c), “ at t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t s t ag e, t h e

b u rd en was o n [Ap p el l ees ] t o co m e fo rward wi t h ev i d en ce d em o n s t rat i ng as a m at t er

o f l aw t h at [Hay es ’ s] i n

j ury o ccu rred an d m an ifes t ed i ts el f m ore t han two y ears b efo re

[Ap pel lan t ’ s ] m alpr a c tic e s uit w a s c om m e nced .” (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .)

W a r d v. Ber g en , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p. at 2 6 0

.

Ap p el l ees arg ue th at t h e n e w i nju ry ex cep t i on s h o u l d n o t ap p l y b ecau s e

Hay es ’ s can cer was n o t a b en i g n o r t reat ab l e co nd i t i o n i n No v em b er 2 0 1 3

, an d t h at

s h e d i d n o t rem ai n as y m

p t o m at i c b efo re t h e d ev el o pm en t o f t h e al l eg ed n ew i n ju ry

.

Hay es ’ s co n di t i o n was n o t b en i g n as o f No v em b er 1 3

, 20 1 3

, b u t Ap p el l ees d o n ot

s h o w th at i t was n o t t hen t reat ab l e, o r t h a t i t was as o r l es s t reat ab l e t h an t h e

m et as t at i c can cer t hat s h e l at er d ev el o p ed

. 5 Rat h er, t h e ev i d en ce s h o w e d t h at t h e

5 In t h ei r ap p el lat e b ri ef, Ap p el l ees em p h as i ze “ m ed i cal st at i s t i cs ” s h o wi n g

ap p ro x i m at el y t w o -t h i rd s o f wo m en di ag n o s ed wi t h i n g rad e t h ree l ei o m y os arco m a

d i e wi t h i n fi ve y ears o f d i ag n o s i s

. In s u p po rt o f t h e as sert i o n

, th ey ci te t o t h ei r l o wer

co u rt b ri ef, wh i ch i n t urn rel i es o n an o u t -o f-co u rt s t at em en t

, i

. e

. , a web s i t e.

Pret erm i t t i n g wh et h er Ap p el l ees ’ s t at i stic a l a s s ert io n co n st i tu t es ev id en ce, i t d o es n ot

s h o w t h at Hay es ’ s co n d i t io n was u n t reat ab l e.

8u l t i m at e m et as t as i s o f Hay es ’ s u t eri n e can cer l ed to a s u b s t an t ial l y red u ced l i k el i h o o d

o f her su rv i v al

. Fu rt h er, acco rd in g to Dr. Irv in

, “ an o p en l ap aro t o m y w i t h rem o v al o f

an i n t act u t eru s ” w as an al tern at i v e t o t h e p ro ced u re i n v o lv in g m o rcel l at i o n

, wh i ch

carri ed wi t h i t an “ at t en dan t ri s k o f . . . d eat h ” fro m t h e s p read o f t h e m al i g n an cy

.

On t h e ad v i ce o f p h y s i ci an s at t he M ay o Cl i n i c, Hay es al s o un d erwen t

ch em o t h erap y aft er t he p at h o lo g y co n fi rm ed t h at h er u teri n e fi bro i d s were m al i g n an t

an d du ri n g t h e p eri o d b efo re t h e n ew t u m ors ap p eared

. Ap p el l ees p o s i t, al b ei t wi t h o ut

t es t i m o ny o f t h e p h y s i ci an s wh o au t h o ri zed t h e ch em o t h erap y

, 6 th at l i cen sed m ed i cal

p r o f e s s i on al s w o ul d n o t h av e p erm i t t ed s uch “ u n neces s ary care” i f Hay es were

“ can cer free.” Ho wev er, th e ev i den ce d o es n ot d em an d s u ch a co n cl u s i o n

. 7 Ap p el l an t

,

o n t he o th er han d

, h as p o i n t ed t o ev i den ce t h at H ay es ’ s m et as tat i c can cer d i d n ot

m an i fes t un t il Oct o ber 2 4

, 2 0 1 4, an d t h at Dr. Hi n es ’ s m i sd ia g nosi s i n No v em b er 2 0 1 3

co n tri b u t ed t o t he i m

pro per t reat m en t o f H ay es ’ s co n d i t i on an d t h ereb y t o “ t h e

6 As far as p r o f

e s s i o n al t es t i m o n y

, t h e ap p el l at e reco rd i n cl u d es o n l y t h e

affi d av i ts at tach ed t o A p pel l an t ’ s co m p l ai n t, an d t h e am en d m en t s t heret o, an d t h e

d ep os i t i o n o f Dr. So u n d ararajan

.

7 At h i s d ep os i t i o n Ap pel l an t ag reed t hat o n e o f t h e p h y s i ci an s at t h e M ay o

Cl i n i c l oo ked at t h e PET s can an d d i d n ’ t s ee an y act i v e c a n c e r

. Ap p el l an t t h en

t es t i fi ed th at Hay es was ad m i t t ed i n to a s t u d y t h at i n v o l v ed ch em o t h erap y “ b ecau s e

a k n o wn l ei o m

y os arco m a t u m o r was m o rcel l at ed i ns i d e [h er] b o dy .”

9d ev el o p m en t o f a m o re d eb i li t at i ng o r l es s t reat ab le co nd i t i o n .” (Ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Cl ea vel a n d v. Ga n n on

, 2 8 4 Ga. at 3 7 7 (1 ). Acco rd i n g l y

, t h e

t ri al co u rt erred i n fi n d i n g t h at

, as a m at t er o f l aw, t h e n ew i nju ry ex cep t i o n d i d n ot

ap p ly

. See i d

. at 3 8 2 (2 ) (wh ere ev i d en ce au t h ori zed a fi n d i n g t hat

, fo l l o wi n g

d efen d an t s ’ n eg l i gen ce i n fai l i n g t o d iag n o s i s can cer t h at l at er m et as t as i zed

, t h e

p at i en t ex p eri en ced a p eri o d wh en h e was as y m p t o m at i c o f m e t a s t a t ic can cer, t h e

“ n ew i n ju ry ” ex cep t i o n p recl u ded th e g ran t o f s um m ary j u d gm en t t o t h e d efen d an t s

b as ed o n t h e ex p i rat io n o f t he st at u t e o f l i m it at io n ); Amu v. Ba rn es

, 2 8 3 Ga. at 5 5 3

-

5 5 4 (m et as t at i c can cer co n s t i t u t ed a “ n ew i n j u ry ” wh i ch d i d n ot ex i s t at t h e t i m e o f

t h e o ri g i n al d i ag n o s i s

, b u t wh i ch was p ro x i m at el y cau s ed b y d efen dan t ’ s n eg l i g en ce,

an d s o t h e l i m i t at i o n p eri o d b eg an t o ru n wh en t h e p at i en t e x p e r i e n ced t h e n ew

i n ju ry ) ; W a r d v. B er

gen

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 6 1 (as a ju ry i s s u e rem ai n ed as t o wh en

i n v a s i v e can cer d ev el o p ed an d m et as t as ized aft er d efen d an t ’ s al l eg ed fai l u re t o

p ro p erl y d i ag n o s e an d t reat t h e p at i en t ’ s co n d i t i o n

, an d wh et her s h e ex p eri en ced an y

s y m p to m s o f t h e in v as i v e can cer m o re t h an 2 y ears b efo re fi l in g su i t

, m al p ract i ce

cl ai m s were n o t b arred b y t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n as a m at t er o f law, an d 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 t o t h e d efen d an t ).

102

. Th e Ap p el l an t al s o co n t en d s th at t h e t ri al co ur t i n co rrect l y co n cl u d ed t h at

t h e to l l i n g p ro v i s i on s o f OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2 d i d n o t ap p l y t o t h i s cas e. OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2

p ro v id es , i n ap p l i cab l e p art :

Th e t i m e b et we e n t h e d eat h o f a p ers o n an d t h e co m m en cem en t o f

rep res en t at i o n up o n h i s es t at e

. . . s h al l n ot b e co u n t ed ag ai n s t h is es t at e

i n cal cu l at i ng an y li m it at i o n ap p l icab l e to t h e b ri n g i n g o f an act i o n

,

p ro v i d ed t h at s u ch t i m e s h al l n o t ex ceed fi v e y ears

.

Th u s, “ [ l ] i m i t at i o n s tat u t es ru n ag ai n s t es t at es

, b u t wh en es t at es are u n rep res en t ed

,

s u ch s t at u t es are t o l l ed b et ween t h e d eat h o f a p e r s o n an d t h e ap p o in t m en t o f a

rep res en t at i v e . . . fo r a p eri o d o f fi v e y ears p ro v i d ed rep res en t at i o n i s t ak en wi t h in

t h at peri o d o f t im e.” H

ar r i s on v. Ho l

s en b e c k

, 2 0 8 Ga. 4 1 0, 4 1 1 (6 7 SE2 d 3 1 1 )

(1 9 5 1).

Ap p el l ees arg u e t h at

, as Ap p el l an t o b tai n ed co u n s el an d s o ug h t ex p ert ad v i ce

b efo re hav i n g “ h i m sel f ap po i n t ed ” ad m i n i s t rat o r, h e b eg an act i n g as t h e es t at e’ s

ad m i n i s trat o r b efo re hi s fo rm al ap p o i n t m en t an d t h ereb y im pl i ci t l y wai v ed t h e

s t at u te’ s t o ll i ng pro vi s io n s

. Pret erm i t t i n g wh et h er Ap p el lan t ’ s p re-ap p o i nt m en t act s

were co n s i st en t wi t h t h at o f an ad m i n i s t rat or, 8 w e fi n d n o s u p p o rt fo r t h i s arg u m en t

.

8 Ap p el l an t h ad h i s o wn i n t eres ts t o p ro t ec t i n p u r s u i n g a cl ai m fo r Hay es ’ s

wro ng fu l d eat h

.

11Fi rs t

, t h e t o l l i n g p ro v i s io n in OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2

, i n li g h t o f t h e u s e o f t h e wo rd “ s h al l ,”

co n tem p l at es th at “ t h e t o l l i n g cal cu lat i on t h erei n pro v i d e d [i s ] m an d at o ry i n ev ery

i n s t an ce w h ere t h e s t at ut e [i s ] ap p l i cab l e; t h at i s , t o l l i n g o ccu rs b y o p erat i o n o f l aw

t o t he ex t en t p ro v i d ed b y t h e s tat u t e.” Leg u m v. Cr o u ch , 2 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 1 85 , 1 8 8 (3 )

(4 3 0 SE2 d 3 6 0 ) (1 9 9 3 ). See Go o d ma n v. S a t i ll a Hea l t h S

vcs

. , 2 90 G a. Ap p

. 6, 9 (6 5 8

SE2 d 79 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ) ( a p p l y i n g t ol l i n g p ro vi s i o n o f OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2 to d i s p u t e as to

wh et h er t h e s t at ut e o f l i m it at i o n h ad ru n o n an es t at e’ s m ed i c a l m al p ract i ce cl ai m ).

Seco n d

, “ o nl y th e q u al i fi cat i o n o f a p erm an en t ad m i n i s t rat or co n s t i t u t es

rep res en t at i o n up on t he es t at e s o a s t o t ri g g er t h e rev i v al o f a t o l led s t at u t e o f

l i m i tat i on s

. ” (Ci t at i o n s o m it t ed .) Del l er v. S mi t h

, 2 5 0 Ga. 15 7

, 1 59 (1 ) (b ) (2 9 6 SE2 d

4 9 ) (1 98 2 ). See Ki t ch en s v. Br u s ma n

, 2 8 0 Ga. Ap p

. 16 3

, 1 6 5 (2 ) (6 3 3 SE2 d 5 8 5 )

(2 0 0 6) (t h e ap po i n t m en t o f a t em p o rary ad m i n i st ra t o r d oes n o t res u l t i n t h e

rep res en t at i o n of t h e es t at e fo r p u rp o s es o f t h e t o ll i n g p ro v i s i o n o f OCGA § 9 -3 -3 2 ).

Ev en i f Ap p el l an t h ired a l awy er an d co n s ul t ed wi t h ex p ert s b efo reh an d

, he was n o t

,

i f fact

, ap p o i n ted ad m i n i s trat or u n t i l Decem b er 9

, 20 1 5, at wh ich t i m e t he s t at u t e o f

l i m i tat i on on t h e es t at e’ s m al p ract i ce c l a i m

, wh ich h ad b een t o l led u p o n Hay es ’ s

d eat h

, b eg an t o ru n an ew. See Go o d ma n v. Sa t il l a Hea lt h S

vcs

. , 2 9 0 Ga. Ap p. at 9 (In

a m ed i cal m al p ract i ce cas e, th e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n b eg an t o ru n o n t h e es t at e’ s cl ai m

12o n t h e dat e o f th e d eced en t’ s d i ag n o s is

, wh i ch was th e d at e o f in ju ry

, an d i t co n t i n u ed

t o ru n u n t i l t h e d eced en t’ s deat h

, at wh i ch t i m e t h e ru n ni n g o f t h e p eri o d was t o l l ed

u n t i l t h e ap p oi n t m en t of t h e es t at e’ s rep res en t at i v e.). It fo l l o ws th a t th e t ri al co u rt

erred i n fi n d i n g t h at OCGA § 9 -3 -9 2 “ d o es n o t ap p ly ” t o t h i s cas e.

3

. Fi n al l y

, Ap p el l an t co n t en d s t hat th e tri al co urt erred i n ru l i n g t h at t he s eco n d

am en d ed co m

p l ai nt d id no t rel at e b ack t o th e o ri g in al co m p l a i n t fo r p u rp o s es o f

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c). 9 As ex pl ai n ed i n Di v i s i o n 1

, s u pra, a q u es ti o n of m at eri al fact

rem a i n s wh et h er, u n d er t h e “ n ew i n ju ry ” ex cep ti o n t o O CGA § 9 -3 -7 1 (a), t h e

s t at u to ry p eri o d o f l i m it at i o n b eg an t o ru n o n Oct o ber 2 4

, 2 0 1 4

. Gi v en t h at t h e

9 OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) p ro v i d es :

W h en ev er t h e cl ai m or d efen se as sert ed i n t h e am en ded p l ead in g ari ses

o u t o f t h e co nd u ct

, tran s a c t i on

, o r o ccu rren ce s et fo rt h o r at t em p t ed t o

b e s et fo rt h i n t h e o ri g in al p l ead i n g, t h e am en d m en t rel at es b ack t o th e

d at e o f t he o ri g i n al p l ead i n g

. An am en d m en t ch an g i n g th e p art y ag ai n s t

wh o m a c l a i m i s a s s ert ed rel at es b ack t o t h e dat e o f t he o ri g i nal

p l ead i n g s i f t h e fo reg o i n g p ro v i s i o n s are s at i s fi ed

, an d i f wi t h i n th e

p eri o d p ro v i d ed b y law fo r co m m en ci ng t h e act i o n ag ai n st h i m t h e p art y

t o b e b ro u gh t i n b y am en d m en t (1 ) h as recei ved s u ch n ot i ce o f th e

i n s t i t u t i o n of t h e act i o n t h at h e wi l l no t b e p reju d i ced i n m ai nt ai ni n g h i s

d efen s e o n t h e m eri ts

, an d (2 ) k n ew or s h o u l d h av e kn o wn t h at

, b u t fo r

a m i st ak e co n cern i ng t h e i d en t i t y o f t h e p ro per p art y , t h e act i o n w o u l d

h av e b een b ro ug h t ag ai n s t h i m

.

13l i m i tat i on p eri o d was t ol l ed fro m t h e d at e o f Hay es ’ s d eat h to t h e ap p o i n t m en t o f an

ad m i n is t rat o r of h er es t at e, as ex p l ai n ed in Di v i s i o n 2

, su p ra, i f t h e fi n d er o f fact

d et erm i n es t h at H ay es s u ffered a n ew i nju ry o n Oct o b er 2 4, 2 0 1 4, t h en Dr. Hi n es was

s erv ed wi t h in t he t i m e al l o wed

. 1 0 Acco rd i n g l y

, as t he c a s e cu rren tl y s tan d s

, i t i s

p rem at u re t o co n s i d er wh et her t h e s eco n d am en d ed co m p l ai n t wo u l d rel at e b ack to

t h e i n i ti al co m

pl ai n t i f Dr. Hi n es h ad b een s erv ed o ut s i d e t h e l i m i t at i o n p eri o d

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Mi l l er

, P. J., co n cu r

s a nd Go bei l , J., co n cu r

s s p eci a l l y

. *

* THI S OPI NI ON I S PHYSI CAL PRECEDENT ONLY. C OURT OF A PPEALS

RULE 3 3 .2 (a )

1 0 Gen eral l y , “ [w] h en an u n i d en t i fi ed p art y i s s u ed as ‘ J o h n Do e’ an d s erv i ce

as to t h e u n k no wn p art y i s s u cces s fu l w i t hi n t h e s t at u t e o f l im i t at i o ns

, an am en d m en t

t o t h e co m

p l ai n t rel at es b ack to t h e fi l i n g o f t h e o ri g i nal co m p l ai n t .” Ba i l ey v. Kemp er

Gr o up

, 18 2 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 4

, 6 0 6 (3 5 6 SE2 d 6 9 5 ) (1 98 7 ). See S i ms v. A m e r i ca n Ca s

. Co

. , 1 3 1 Ga. Ap p. 46 1, 4 8 1 (6 ) (2 0 6 SE2 d 12 1 ) (1 9 7 4 ) (acco rd ). Ho wev er, “ [w] h ere

s erv i ce h as n o t b een effect ed s ucces s fu l l y o n t h e J o h n Do e p art y wi t h i n t h e st at u t o ry

t i m e o f l i m i t at i o n s

, th e t es t of OCGA § 9 -1 1-1 5 (c) ap p li es

. ” Ba i l ey v. Kemp er Gr o u p

, 1 8 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 06

. See g en eral l y Bi s h o p v. Fa r ha t

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 01

, 2 0 2 (1 ) (4 8 9

SE2 d 3 2 3 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) i s t h e p ro ced ure “ b y wh ich t h e t ri al co u rt

d et erm i n es wh et h er t h e am en d ed co m pl ai n t ‘ rel at es b ack ’ t o a fi l i n g wi t h i n t h e s t at u t e

o f l i m i t at i o n

. ”).

14A1 8 A0 86 3 . HAYES, et al . v

. HINES, et al

.

G O B E I L

, J u d g e, co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

.

Th e Ap p el l an t co n ced es t h at b i o p s y s am p l es fro m Eri k a Hay es ’ lap aro s co p i c

h y s t erect o m

y w e r e p at h ol o g i cal l y co n fi rm ed as “ g rad e III l ei o m y o s arco m a, i .e., a

p art i cu l arl y ag g res s i ve fo rm o f s o ft t i s s u e can cer wi t h a h i g h m o rt al i t y rat e.” Th i s

g ri m d i ag n o s i s cal l s i n t o q u es t io n wh et h er t h e u l t i m at e m et as t as i s o f t h e can cer was

a n ew i nju ry o r ju st t he i n ev i t ab l e p ro gres si on o f a d ead l y d i s eas e. Ap p el l an t as s ert s

t h at th ere w as a peri o d d uri ng wh i ch M s

. Hay es was “ can cer-fre e ” f o l l o wi n g t h e

h y s t erect o m

y (b as ed u p o n n eg at i v e CT an d PET s can s

, b u t n ot n eces sari l y ex p l o ri n g

wh at t h e s can s are cap ab l e of d et ect i n g). On t h e ot h er h an d , Ap p el l ees co n t en d t h atM s

. Hay es was s y m p t o m at i c an d act i v el y p art i ci p at i n g i n ch em o th erap y t h ro u g h o ut

t h e t i m e b et ween h er can cer d i ag n o s i s an d d eat h

. Gi v en t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e, t h e

cas el aw o n wh et h er t he m et as t as i s o f can cer can b e a n ew in ju ry an d t h e s t an d ard fo r

s u m m ary ju d gm en t

, I can n o t co n cl u d e as a m at t er o f l aw t h at t h ere i s n o g en u i n e i s s u e

o f m at eri al fact reg a r d in g wh et h er t h ere m ay h av e b een a n ew i n ju ry

. See OCGA §

9 -1 1 -5 6 (c) (s u m

m ary ju d g m en t i s o n l y p ro per w h en t h ere i s n o g en u i n e i s s u e o f

m at eri al fact ). Acco rd i ng l y

, I co n cu r t hat i t was erro r t o d e c i d e th e q u es t i o n o n

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

.

2