Court Opinion

ID: 9575743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:16:35.792183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:55.956821
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the judgments and most of what is written in the majority opinion. I write solely in order to state my view, with reference to Division 4 of the majority opinion, that the decision in Gooden v. Ga. Baptist Hosp. &c., 198 Ga. App. 407, 408 (1) (401 SE2d 602) should be overruled rather than distinguished. Gooden plainly makes applicable to OCGA § 9-11-9.1 the rule from Smith v. Feliciano, 187 Ga. App. 86 (369 SE2d 346) that affidavits which rely on materials not contained in the record must be disregarded because they do not set forth admissible facts. This is inconsistent with the construction of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 as establishing an exception to the general liberality of pleading permitted under the Civil Practice Act and “not to require a plaintiff to prove a prima facie case entitling *114him to recover and capable of withstanding a motion for summary judgment before the defendant need file his answer.” 0-1 Doctors Mem. Holding Co. v. Moore, 190 Ga. App. 286, 288 (1) (378 SE2d 708). The majority opinion in this case distinguishes Smith as relating to evidentiary standards and holds that a verification requirement will not be applied to affidavits submitted to satisfy OCGA § 9-11-9.1.
Decided October 14, 1992 —
Reconsideration denied November 2, 1992
Alston & Bird, Judson Graves, Daniel A. Kent, Richard R. Hays, Paul J. Quiner, M. Gino Brogdon, for HCA Health Services.
Alston & Bird, Dow N. Kirkpatrick, for Katz.
Gleaton, Scofield & Egan, Frederick N. Gleaton, Charles H. Fails, for Green.
Sullivan, Hall Booth & Smith, Henry D. Green, Jr., for Bielfelt.
Ford & Haley, James L. Ford, David C. Cole, for Hampshire.
The majority opinion distinguishes Gooden on the basis that the affidavit in the present case has set forth a “synopsis of . . . facts . . . derived from” the absent medical records. I do not see this as significantly different from the Gooden affidavits which “recite, refer to and rely on” absent medical records. (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 408. In my view, Gooden, if a viable decision, would be applicable to the case sub judice and would require that we disregard Dr. Stone’s affidavit. In Gooden, this court never reached the issue of whether the content of the affidavits satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 since the affidavits were disregarded due to the absence of the medical records upon which they were predicated.
An affidavit submitted pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1 must set forth the factual basis for each claim. The matters required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1 to be set forth within the body of an expert’s affidavit may not be incorporated by reference. Cheeley u. Henderson, 261 Ga. 498 (405 SE2d 865). The anomaly which results is that material, which Gooden requires to be included in the record, may not be considered under Cheeley in determining the sufficiency of the expert affidavit.