Court Opinion

ID: 9600786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:31:14.560342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:37.084265
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I write separately merely to point out that as in Amu v. Barnes, there is no meaningful distinction between this case and our decision last year in Kaminer v. Canas.1 Substitute “AIDS” for “cancer,” and the Court’s description of Gannon’s experience mirrors perfectly the situation in Kaminer-.
At some point, the magnitude of his undiagnosed condition evolved into a “new injury” in which other internal organs, that were unaffected at the time of the misdiagnosis, were compromised and the [AIDS] became life-threatening.2
*384Decided September 22, 2008.
Martin Snow, Richard A. Epps, Jr., Robert R. Gunn II, for appellants (case no. S08G0713).
Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, Rolfe M. Martin, Mark D. Meliski, H. Andrew Owen, Jr., for appellant (case no. S08G0721).
Maniklal & Dennis, Preyesh K. Maniklal, Charles M. Cork III, Warshauer, Poe & Thornton, James M. Poe, Christopher J. McFadden, Bobby-Thompson Chudi Aniekwu, for appellees.
Peters & Monyak, Robert P. Monyak, Jeffrey S. Bazinet, Donald J. Palmisano, Jr., Henry, Spiegel, Fried & Milling, Harvey R. Spiegel, Pope & Howard, J. Marcus Edward Howard, amici curiae.
Consequently, and because I agree that the majority reaches the correct result in this case, I concur.

 Kaminer v. Canas, 282 Ga. 830 (653 SE2d 691) (2007). See Amu v. Barnes, 283 Ga. 549 (662 SE2d 113) (2008) (Sears, C. J., concurring).

 Maj. opinion, p. 379.