Court Opinion

ID: 9844958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:12:29.589221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:48.259998
License: Public Domain

*905PHIPPS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Divisions 1 and 2. Because Dr. Schwartz was qualified under OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (c) (2) (A) to render an expert opinion about the diagnosis and treatment of a vascular ring, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendant doctors’ motions to dismiss. I therefore dissent to Division 3 (a). I concur specially in Division 3 (b).
We have repeatedly stated and the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear that the language of OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (c) (2) (A) does not require an expert to have knowledge and experience in or to actively practice in the same area of practice or specialty as the defendant doctors.17 Yet the majority plainly applies a more stringent standard here because Dr. Schwartz is not a neonatologist or pediatric otolaryngologist. The appropriate inquiry is whether the expert has “knowledge and experience in the practice or specialty that is relevant to the acts or omissions that the plaintiff alleges constitute malpractice.”18
Based on the complaint’s allegations, the “area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is to be given” involves the diagnosis and treatment of a vascular ring.19 Dr. Schwartz testified that he is a board certified pediatric surgeon and has the “training, knowledge, and experience to diagnose and surgically manage children with vascular rings.” He further testified that he daily cooperates with all specialists involved in a child’s care to determine whether surgery is the best option and regularly cooperates with neonatologists and pediatric otolaryngologists to manage surgical problems in children. Dr. Schwartz averred that he has “over thirty years experience in diagnosing and managing children with vascular rings.”
We have allowed doctors with less experience to render expert opinions in medical malpractice cases. For example, earlier this term, we decided MCG Health v. Barton,20 in which an emergency room physician testified that a urologist breached the standard of care by failing to timely evaluate and treat an injury, resulting in the loss of a testicle.21 The plaintiffs expert testified that he was “a licensed physician with over 20 years of emergency room experience, including experience diagnosing testicular injuries,” and that was deemed sufficient to qualify him to testify regarding the failure to timely *906evaluate the plaintiffs injuries.22 Despite the fact that Dr. Schwartz has been practicing pediatric surgery since 1974 and has over 30 years experience in diagnosing vascular rings, the majority does not find his experience sufficient to allow him to testify regarding the failure to diagnose Nicholas Spacht’s vascular ring.
Decided November 30, 2007
Reconsideration denied December 14, 2007
Greer, Klosik, Daugherty, Swank & McCune, Robert J. McCune, Alina A. Krivitsky, John F. Daugherty, for appellants.
Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, H. Andrew Owen, Jr., Greenberg Traurig, Darcy F. Coty, Lori G. Cohen, Michael J. King, Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn &Dial, Robert G. Tanner, Thomas E. Lavender III, for appellees.
The trial court determined that Dr. Schwartz did not qualify as a “practicing expert” witness under OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (c) (2) (A) because his affidavits failed to show that he had diagnosed a vascular ring on a specific date within five years of the alleged failure to diagnose. Dr. Schwartz testified, however, that he is involved every day in determining whether a child needs surgery. A vascular ring is an uncommon genetic disorder that requires surgery, and Dr. Schwartz testified that he has the knowledge and experience to diagnose this condition. He specifically testified that he has been diagnosing and managing vascular rings for at least the last 30 years, which is sufficient to satisfy the statute. The majority interprets the statute far too narrowly by concluding otherwise.
Because the record shows that “the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is to be given” is an area of practice in which Dr. Schwartz “possessed the requisite knowledge and experience under OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (c) (2),”23 he is authorized to render an expert opinion in the case about the diagnosis and treatment of a vascular ring.24
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Johnson joins in this opinion.

 Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804(654 SE2d 121) (2007); Mays v. Ellis, 283 Ga. App. 195, 196-197 (1) (a) (641 SE2d 201) (2007); Canas v. Al-Jabi, 282 Ga. App. 764, 795 (3) (c) (639 SE2d 494) (2006), rev’d on other grounds, Kaminer v. Canas, 282 Ga. 830 (653 SE2d 691) (2007); Cotten v. Phillips, 280 Ga. App. 280, 284-285 (633 SE2d 655) (2006).

 Nathans, supra.

 See Mays, supra at 198 (1) (b).

 2 85 Ga. App. 577 (647 SE2d 81) (2007).

 Id. at 580.

 Id. at 581 (1).

 Barton, supra at 581-582; see also Mays, supra at 199.

 See Abramson v. Williams, 281 Ga. App. 617, 619 (636 SE2d 765) (2006).