Imagine this scenario if you will: opposing counsel has blown their thirty (30) day deadline, pursuant to Georgia’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.2, to serve a response to your dispositive motion. Cheers to you! Is it now time to notify the court of opposing counsel’s inexplicable and egregious failure to timely respond to your dispositive motion? Unfortunately, thanks to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6(e), the answer is no. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6(e) states, in pertinent part, Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper, other than process, upon him or her, and the notice or paper is served ... Continue Reading
August Journal 2022
JOURNAL VOLUME 34 NO. 200 The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor and its Application to Personal Injury Cases Even those with a cursory knowledge of the legal system understand that evidence is crucial to any case. But what most people do not know is that the absence of evidence can be just as important. O.C.G.A § 24-14-9 provides that “[i]n arriving at a verdict, the jury, from facts provide, and sometimes from the absence of counter evidence, may infer the existence of other facts reasonably and logically consequent on those proved.” (Emphasis added). One particular application of this principle is the Georgia doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” meaning “the thing speaks for ... Continue Reading
WC-240 Overview: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Light-Duty Job Process
Unlike articles that require scrolling through pages of advertisements before getting to the three easy steps to completing a home improvement project, the three-step WC-240 process— the statutory process to offer a claimant a light-duty job—will be explained. We will then discuss the impact of attempting (or not attempting) the job, an outline of the hearing regarding a claimant’s refusal to perform the light-duty job, and the benefits of using the light-duty job process. The Three-Step Guide Georgia statutes and Board Rules require the following three steps to be taken to offer a claimant a light-duty job. See O.C.G.A. 34-9-240; Board Rule 240. First, the ... Continue Reading
The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor and its Application to Personal Injury Cases
Even those with a cursory knowledge of the legal system understand that evidence is crucial to any case. But what most people do not know is that the absence of evidence can be just as important. O.C.G.A § 24-14-9 provides that “[i]n arriving at a verdict, the jury, from facts provided, and sometimes from the absence of counter evidence, may infer the existence of other facts reasonably and logically consequent on those proved.” (Emphasis added). One particular application of this principle is the Georgia doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence to be applied in cases where there is no evidence of ... Continue Reading
The Unilateral Suspension of Benefits in Workers’ Compensation – A Refresher on the All-Important Role of the “Return to Baseline” Opinion from the Authorized Treating Physician
Following an employer’s commencement of weekly benefits to a claimant in connection with a “compensable” work injury, the Workers’ Compensation Act describes some of the limited scenarios which permit the employer to subsequently and unilaterally suspend such benefits without a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Collectively, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-221, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240, and Board Rule 221 list the more common justifications for the unilateral suspension of such benefits, which include: (1) an actual return to work, (2) an opinion from the Authorized Treating Physician releasing the claimant to regular duty, or (3) the claimant’s unjustified refusal of suitable, limited duty ... Continue Reading
June Journal 2022
JOURNAL VOLUME 34 NO. 199 What is a Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care? A key component in an estate plan is the Georgia Advanced Directive for Health Care. This document allows you to name the people who have access to your medical information and who may make decisions about your medical care in the event you cannot. Upon attaining the age of 18 and becoming a legal adult, a parent cannot make medical decisions or gain access to your medical records. In the event of an emergency, it is important that health care professionals know who to contact. The Georgia Advanced Directive for Health Care appoints an agent, or agents, to act on your behalf. Any agent named must ... Continue Reading
The Importance of Ensuring the Physician-Patient Relationship is Established in a Medical Malpractice Action
It is important in defending a medical malpractice action that we never forget to ask ourselves the threshold question: is there a duty of care? In order to impose liability for medical negligence, three essential elements must be proved: (1) the duty inherent in a professional-patient relationship; (2) breach of that duty by deviating from the appropriate standard of care; and (3) a showing that the failure to exercise the requisite degree of skill is the proximate cause of the injury sustained. Frequently, medical negligence claims in Georgia are brought against physicians that have had little or no contact with a patient. Examples of this include an on-duty physician in ... Continue Reading
What is a Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care
A key component in an estate plan is the Georgia Advanced Directive for Health Care. This document allows you to name the people who have access to your medical information and who may make decisions about your medical care in the event you cannot. Upon attaining the age of 18 and becoming a legal adult, a parent cannot make medical decisions or gain access to your medical records. In the event of an emergency, it is important that health care professionals know who to contact. The Georgia Advanced Directive for Health Care appoints an agent, or agents, to act on your behalf. Any agent named must act in your best interests but is allowed access to your medical information without violating ... Continue Reading
A Premises Owner Can Defeat A Claim of Constructive Knowledge of a Hazard With Reasonable Inspection Procedures
The owner of an establishment is not liable for a claimant’s injury simply by virtue of the injury occurring on the owner’s premises. The fact that someone falls on the premises does not automatically entitle them to a recovery against the owner. The mere ownership of land or buildings does not render one liable for the injuries sustained by the persons who have entered thereon or therein. Simply stated, falling and injuring one’s self proves nothing. Such happenings are commonplace wherever humans go. To presume that because a customer falls on the premises of a proprietor, the proprietor has somehow been negligent would make the proprietor an ... Continue Reading
Georgia Supreme Court Holds Burden on Corporate Entity Must Be Considered When a Party Seeks to Depose a High-Level Executive
In General Motors, LLC v. Buchanan, Case No. S21G1147, 2022 WL 1750716, ---S.E.2d --- (Ga. Sup. Ct. June 1, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court provided guidance on when a party’s high level corporate executive can be deposed. While the Court declined to adopt any sort of special test for when high level executives can be deposed, the Court held that a trial court must consider the traditional “apex factors” if the corporation seeks a protective order to stop the deposition on a case-by-case basis: the high rank of the executive, whether the executive has unique personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and whether the information is available from other sources. Buchanan ... Continue Reading