Court Opinion

ID: 9562425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:28:29.848021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:20.473536
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur in this case, I write separately to emphasize that, for the “new injury” exception to apply, a patient must have experienced an asymptomatic period between the initial misdiagnosis and the onset of new symptoms. See, e.g., Burt v. James, 276 Ga. App. 370 (623 SE2d 223) (2005). I believe that this requirement drives the outcome in both Kaminer v. Canas, 282 Ga. 830 (653 SE2d 691) (2007), and this case. In Kaminer, the patient did not have an asymptomatic period. Instead, he continued to experience a number of ailments and symptoms indicative of his HIV infection following his misdiagnosis. In this case, on the other hand, the patient experienced an asymptomatic period of over a year. Therefore, because an asymptomatic period is a requirement for the application of the “new injury’ rule, that rule could not be applied in Kaminer, but it can be applied in this case. I agree with Chief Justice Sears’ belief that it would not be proper to distinguish this case from Kaminer solely on the basis that one case involves cancer and the other involves HIV infection. I believe nonetheless that the requirement that there be an asymptomatic period creates a legal distinction between these cases which results in the different outcomes.
*556Donald, J. Palmisano, Jr., Peters & Monyak, Robert P. Monyak, Jeffrey S. Bazinet, Pope & Howard, J. Marcus Howard, Henry, Spiegel, Fried & Milling, Harvey R. Spiegel, amici curiae.