Court Opinion

ID: 9625792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:51:18.996281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:15.413931
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge.
Addendum to dissent. On consideration of motion for rehearing, the majority has re-written pages, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, and 6g (pp. 511-515); it now becomes necessary to reply to new argument and citations found in these additional pages.
The new majority opinion (p. 512), asks this question: "In short, is a doctor as an expert permitted to testify concerning the degree of care and skill exercised by nurses and hospitals?” The question itself is incomplete, because the question propounded and answered — and to which plaintiff made objection — was as to the degree of care and skill exercised by nurses and hospitals in the area of Waycross; whereas it should have been directed to the degree of care and skill exercised generallyby nurses and hospitals, not limited to a particular area. See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 (2) (145 SE2d 760).
The new majority opinion cites many cases, none of which touch the point, including the following: Summerour v. Lee, 104 Ga. App. 73 (2) (121 SE2d 80); Wilson v. Kornegay, 108 Ga. App. 318, 320 (132 SE2d 791); Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269 (2) (98 SE2d 552); Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga. App. 451, 454 (11 SE2d 420); Fincher v. Davis, 27 Ga. App. 494 (4) (108 SE 905); Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga. App. 422, 423 (16 SE2d 45).
All of these are malpractice cases involving dentists, physicians or surgeons — none involves hospitals or nurses. None of these cited cases holds that the degree of care employed locally, or in the area where the alleged malpractice occurred, is the controlling standard.
The new majority opinion (p. 513), observes rather lamely: "We can not perceive of any good reason why the rule applicable in malpractice cases against physicians should not apply equally to the present action brought against the hospital in which technical questions were involved and on which the physician has first been qualified as an expert.” Our reply to the above is that the defendant did not come forward with any witness who professed to know the standards of care required of nurses and hospitals generally, but limited the answers to the standards of care in the Waycross area. And when plaintiff brought forth its Doctor Jonas to testify as to standards required of hospitals and nurses generally in this kind of case, defendant objected to the testimony and the objection was by the court sustained. To repeat, as is held so clearly in Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 (2) supra, the question is not as to the skill employed by the profession in the *520immediate locality, but that employed by the profession generally.