Court Opinion

ID: 9587503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:22:59.218822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:05.900011
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully with Division 1 and with the result reached in Division 2.1 write separately because I do not agree with all that is said in Division 2.
The hospital submitted positive evidence that a sign was posted in the admissions area reciting that doctors were independent contractors. In concluding that factual issues exist as to whether a sign was indeed posted, the majority relies on the testimony of one witness that he did not recall seeing such a sign, in addition to the fact that “there was no testimony that either Cooper or his wife saw” a sign. This circumstantial evidence has no probative value against the positive, uncontradicted evidence presented by the hospital concerning the existence of a sign. See, e.g., Cannon v. Jeffries, 250 Ga. App. 371, 375 (551 SE2d 777) (2001). Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, no factual issue exists as to the existence of a sign. The hospital has established this fact. Whether the sign was conspicuously posted, however, is a factual question that must be resolved by the jury.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Ruffin joins in this special concurrence.