Court Opinion

ID: 9613007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:13:24.877813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:56:27.154953
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the judgment of reversal because it is my view that plaintiff Beck was not deterred from bringing a timely medical malpractice action as a result of any alleged fraudulent concealment by defendant Dennis of his own professional negligence. As a consequence, Beck’s tort claim for his undoubtedly painful circumstances is extinguished by operation of OCGA § 9-3-71 (b), the statute of ultimate repose.
“To make out a claim of equitable estoppel [sufficient to toll the statute of repose], the plaintiff must show fraud by offering evidence of a known failure to reveal negligence. Hendrix v. Schrecengost, 183 Ga. App. 201, 202 (358 SE2d 486) (1987).” Craven v. Lowndes County Hosp. Auth., 263 Ga. 657, 660 (3) (437 SE2d 308). In my view, the majority confuses that which was intentional with that which might be deceitful. Defendant’s intentional act of leaving one gauze pack in plaintiff’s unhealed face, rather than poke around for it, was not itself *731negligent but was a matter of professional judgment. Neither is this medical judgment evidence of an intent to deceive the patient or lull him into a false sense of security. It follows that defendant’s silence on this matter during the existence of the patient-client relationship is not any evidence of a fraudulent or deceitful failure to reveal known negligence under the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Craven v. Lowndes County Hosp. Auth., 263 Ga. 657, 660 (3), supra. I fully agree that, once plaintiff terminated the patient-physician relation by canceling the April 22, 1983, follow-up appointment with defendant and sought immediate treatment at Clayton General Hospital under the care of S. Gruskin, D.D.S, defendant then had a duty to alert someone to the existence of that last remaining gauze pack in plaintiff’s still unhealed face. It is my view that defendant could have fulfilled this duty by informing plaintiff’s new physician and was not necessarily obliged, under the applicable standard of care, to inform the patient himself or the patient’s family. The unrefuted evidence is that defendant expected but never received a request for medical records from plaintiff’s new physician “since he was still under care for facial fractures.” Consequently, the failure of defendant to inform the patient personally is not evidence of a breach of the applicable standard of care and so cannot be evidence of a deceitful attempt to mask negligent treatment.
Assuming, arguendo, the existence of a duty for a physician to track down a former patient who has deliberately canceled a followup appointment and sought immediate treatment elsewhere, it is my view that, in the case sub judice, defendant’s failure to take such an affirmative step, relying instead upon the anticipated request for medical records, is evidence only of passive negligence in the nature of a misdiagnosis. According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, “[h] owe ver, a fraud count must allege more than misdiagnosis to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [Cit.]” Lynch v. Waters, 256 Ga. 389, 390 (349 SE2d 456). “Nothing in this record shows that [defendant hid] any knowledge of [his own] negligent practice.” Craven v. Lowndes County Hosp. Auth., 263 Ga. 657, 660 (3), supra.
Lastly, even if a jury would be authorized to find that defendant intentionally concealed what he feared would be embarrassing facts in his treatment of the patient, nevertheless, the record in the case sub judice affirmatively shows that plaintiff was not deterred from bringing a timely action as a result of any fraudulent concealment by defendant. According to the complaint, plaintiff gradually suffered “chronic sinus problems” after defendant’s treatment, despite having sought the immediate assistance of Dr. Gruskin and the ultimate assistance of Dr. Davis. “Even if evidence of fraud exists, the statute of [ultimate repose] is not tolled when the plaintiff knew all facts neces*732sary to [discover the] malpractice before the running of the [statute of repose]. [Cit.] In this case, the repeated recurrence of symptoms of medical complications prior to the running of the statute of [repose] should have put plaintiff on notice of possible negligent medical treatment. . . .” Hendrix v. Schrecengost, 183 Ga. App. 201, 203 (2), supra. As it is my view that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment based upon OCGA § 9-3-71 (b), the statute of ultimate repose, I respectfully dissent from the judgment of reversal.
Decided December 5, 1994
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1994
Reynolds & McArthur, Charles M. Cork III, for appellants.
Tisinger, Tisinger, Vance & Greer, Kevin Buice, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Judge Andrews and Judge Johnson join in this dissent.