Court Opinion

ID: 9562424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:28:29.844482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:20.456540
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I write separately merely to state that there is no meaningful distinction between this case and our recent decision in Kaminer v. Canas1 other than the fact that this case involves a man with cancer while Kaminer involved a child with AIDS. In fact, Kaminer is the stronger case for application of the new injury rule. AIDS is a medical *555condition caused by HIV infection in which the autoimmune system is impaired.2 The sufferer has an increased susceptibility to a host of separate diseases caused by viruses, bacteria, and fungi that the body can no longer effectively ward off. Patients whose HIV infection has progressed to the point that they are considered to have AIDS develop illnesses as varied as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, pneumocystis pneumonia, brain lesions, cervical cancer, Epstein-Barr Virus, and chronic diarrhea. Each of these diseases would appear to fall well within the majority’s description of a “ ‘new injury’... that [is] not... necessarily the immediate consequence of a physician’s negligent misdiagnosis.” Consequently, because I dissented in Kaminer, and because I believe that the majority has reached the correct result in this case, I concur.
Decided June 2, 2008.
Bobby C. Aniekwu, Christopher J. McFadden, for appellants.
James M. Poe, for appellees.

 Kaminer v. Canas, 282 Ga. 830 (653 SE2d 691) (2007).

 See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 633-637 (118 SC 2196, 141 LE2d 540) (1998).