Court Opinion

ID: 9850247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:01.172908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:33.701097
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring specially.
In this Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA) case, I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the grant of partial summary judgment in Henderson v. Gandy, 270 Ga. App. 827 (608 SE2d 248) (2004) is correct. However, I do not believe that there is any need to resort to the “right for any reason” principle in order to reach that result. In my opinion, the Court of Appeals was correct for the reason that it gave for its holding.
In footnote 3, the majority states that it
disagree [s] with the Court of Appeals . . . insofar as that [Court’s] opinion could be read to exclude from the FBPA all conduct which “affected only the internal practices of the group” (Atlanta Cardiology) and were contained only in the patient’s private medical records. [Cit.]
Unlike the majority, I agree completely with that holding of the Court of Appeals, and I further submit that such holding is entirely consistent with the majority’s rationale for disposing of this case. If, as the Court of Appeals recognized, conduct affects only the internal practices of a professional organization, it obviously does not affect anyone outside of that organization. If conduct does not affect anyone outside of a professional organization, then it does not affect a *100consumer “ ‘and could not affect the consuming public generally.’ [Cit.]” Henderson v. Gandy, supra at 829 (4) (quoting Zeeman v. Black, 156 Ga. App. 82-83 (273 SE2d 910) (1980)).
Decided December 1, 2005.
Kirschner & Venker, Andrew R. Kirschner, Michael W. McElroy, for appellants.
Paul E. Weathington, Wayne D. Toth, for appellees.
Footnote 3 further provides that, under the majority’s holding, “an internal policy which is implemented to deceive the consumer and which furthers the business or commercial aspects of a physician’s practice may be actionable under the FBPA.” Of course, such an internal policy would not affect only the internal practices of the professional organization, but could instead affect the consuming public generally. Therefore, the majority’s holding and the holding of the Court of Appeals are both right for the same reason. “The FBPA... does not provide a remedy for actions that do not and could not affect the general consuming public. [Cit.]” Henderson v. Gandy, supra at 830 (4). Accordingly, we should either summarily affirm the Court of Appeals or vacate the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
I am authorized to state that Justice Melton joins in this special concurrence.