Court Opinion

ID: 9584711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:58.635122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:47.293626
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Chief Judge,
concurring specially on motion for reconsideration and request for leave to supplement the record.
It was pointed out in a special concurrence when the original opinion in this case was issued that I reluctantly concurred, because the record contained no support for the statement in appellant’s brief *895that “[s]uit was [originally] filed on March 25, 1993, in the State Court of Muscogee County and subsequently dismissed without prejudice on May 27, 1993.” The record does show that the suit before us was filed on September 10, 1993, and that the injury first manifested itself at least by September 7, 1991, when the patient experienced fever blisters and other unexpected negative symptoms.
If evidence of the facts asserted by appellant in regard to the procedural history of her claim were contained in the record, this case might come within the grace period provided by OCGA § 9-2-61 (a), which states, “[w]hen any case has been commenced in either a state or federal court within the applicable statute of limitations and the plaintiff discontinues or dismisses the same, it may be recommenced in a court of this state or, if permitted by the federal rules of civil procedure, in a federal court either within the original applicable period of limitations or within six months after the discontinuance or dismissal, whichever is later. . . .” The suit before us was filed within six months of May 27, so the statute would declare it timely if it was a renewed suit, inasmuch as it would be regarded as having been filed on March 25. Bennett v. Matt Gay Chevrolet Oldsmobile, 200 Ga. App. 348, 349 (1) (408 SE2d 111) (1991). I say the suit “might” come within the grace period because this assumes that the original suit would fall within the procedural strictures of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (f), which is also not demonstrated by the record. The expert affidavit in the current suit is dated September 10, 1993; it did not exist the previous March so as to be submitted with any complaint filed then.
Although appellee does not dispute the statement which is dehors the record, and Rule 271 (b) (1) permits the court to accept it as uncontroverted, this generally relates to facts shown somewhere in the record. Appellant has the responsibility of both including in the record all that is necessary to support the enumerations of error, Nazli v. Scott, 203 Ga. App. 523, 524 (2) (417 SE2d 187) (1992), and citing the parts of the record which confirm the accuracy of the required statement of the proceedings below. Rule 27 (a) (1). Section (c) (3) of that rule also directs that specific references to the record or transcript be made. See Dugger v. Danello, 175 Ga. App. 618, 619 (2) (334 SE2d 3) (1985).
Appellant has not raised as a ground of the enumerated error that the court failed to consider the grace period provided by OCGA § 9-2-61 (a), but we could not even overlook this deficiency because of the silent record. Nor has appellant attempted to utilize the procedure for adding record which is provided for in OCGA § 5-6-48 (d), until this late date. The record would have to include the pleadings *896and voluntary dismissal in the prior suit, and appellant has not asserted that her first suit satisfied OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (f).
Decided February 16, 1995
Reconsideration Denied March 28, 1995.
William J. Wright, for appellant.
Layfield, Rothschild & Morgan, Jerome M. Rothschild, Virgil T. Theus, for appellee.
Thus the involuntary dismissal must be affirmed. It would be a slim reed upon which to exercise jurisdiction if the mere statement of the plaintiff or appellant could establish timeliness; whether deliberately misleading or innocently inaccurate, the self-serving recitation would allow litigation of a stale claim. For the court to assure compliance with the law, it must be certain that such a statement represents fact.
I am authorized to state that Judge Johnson joins in this special concurrence.

 At the time the briefs were filed, this was Rule 15.