No Summary Judgment When Defendant Can be Construed to Have "Set The Stage" for The Injury

The Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment on the grounds that a question of material fact existed where defendant-church may have “set the stage” for the accident. In Henderson v. St. Paul Baptist Church, 328 Ga. App 123 (2014), Plaintiff, a visitor of St. Paul Baptist Church fell into a hole while walking from her car to the Church and suffered a fractured leg. Despite Plaintiff’s knowledge that cars were typically parked across the street (though there was no designated parking lot), she and her husband parked beside the Church property: The Church’s pastor motioned for them to park there, behind his own vehicle. In walking towards the church building, Plaintiff chose to take a shortcut and enter through the side entrance. The ground between her car and the entrance was completely covered with pine straw, covering the hole in which she fell.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Church based on the voluntary departure rule, i.e., the guest deviated from the designated route to the front of the Church and therefore, did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety. However, the appellate court reversed, holding: 1) The pastor who invited them to park behind his own car knew of the hole covered by pine straw but nevertheless, invited them to park there, and 2) The entire area between Plaintiff’s car and the side entrance to the Church was covered by pine straw, leaving her with no other choice but to walk on it. More specifically, the appellate court pointed out that the Plaintiff had satisfied her burden of proving that the Church had actual knowledge of the hole, and thus, the burden shifted to the Church to show that the injury was caused by the Plaintiff’s own negligence. The Church presented evidence that Plaintiff took a shortcut rather than the prescribed route to the front of the building, shifting the burden back to Plaintiff to raise a question as to whether her negligence resulted from the Defendant’s actions.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the pastor’s invitation to Plaintiff and her husband to park closest to the side entrance of the building with knowledge of the hole, as well as the fact that the entire area was covered in pine straw, raised a sufficient question of fact to defeat summary judgment. Analogizing to a case in which a hotel guest suffered injury after walking down uneven steps from a side entrance with a sign that was not illuminated properly, the Court concluded that there may be some evidence that the Church “set the stage” for this accident.

The take-away: property owners should be aware that even when there is evidence of plaintiff’s own negligence, such as deviation from a prescribed path, defendants may still need to prove that they did not set the stage, i.e., in some way entice the guest to the hazard.

Georgia Supreme Court Sides with State on Amount of Loss Requirement for Pre-Suit Notices

In the early 90’s, the Georgia General Assembly recognized that because of the scope of the State government’s responsibilities, it could potentially face tremendous financial exposure if subjected to unlimited tort liability. Consequently, the General Assembly enacted the Georgia Tort Claims Act (“GTCA”) which struck a balance between the two: a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. “The stated intent of the [GTCA] is to balance strict application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which may produce ‘inherently unfair and inequitable results,’ against the need for limited ‘exposure of the state treasury to tort liability.'” Norris v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 268 Ga. 192, 192 (1997). 

As a prerequisite to filing suit, the GTCA provides that no tort action can be filed against the State without first providing ante-litem notice within one year after the underlying incident. O.C.G.A. §50-21-26(a). The pre-suit notice must include the name of the state entity the claim will be asserted against, the time and place of the event from which the claim arose, the nature and amount of the loss suffered, and the acts or omissions that allegedly caused the loss. O.C.G.A. §50-21-26(a). The purpose of the ante-litem notice requirement is to give the State the opportunity to investigate the claim, evaluate the claim, and hopefully, facilitate settlement before a lawsuit is filed.

In July, we blogged about recent Georgia appellate rulings interpreting the ante-litem notice requirement. SeeSusan J. Levy, Esq. and Linda Yu, Esq., Georgia Supreme Court to Weigh in on Amount of Loss Requirement for Ante-Litem Notices to the State, Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer, July 2, 2014, https://www.georgiainsurancedefenselawyer.com. Specifically, we discussed the 2013 ruling of the Georgia Court of Appeals which upheld the validity of an ante-litem notice despite the claimant’s failure to include the amount of the loss claimed. Myers v. Board of Regents, 324 Ga. App 685 (2013). In Myers, the plaintiff stepped on the edge of a pothole in a parking lot at Dalton State College and sustained left ankle injuries for which she received emergency medical treatment, orthopedic treatment, and physical therapy.

Myers sent ante-litem notice to the State approximately three months after the incident. In her notice, Myers stated that the amount of her loss was “yet to be determined as she is still incurring medical bills and does not yet know the full extent of her injury.” Lawyers for the State challenged the adequacy of the notice. The Georgia Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the case, however, finding that since Myers was still treating at the time her ante-litem notice was sent, she could not reasonably quantify the amount of her damages. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a hyper-technical adherence to the statutory language would have barred the plaintiff’s recovery, and therefore, would not have advanced the purpose of the GTCA. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Myers, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 768 (Oct. 6, 2014).

In the 6-1 decision penned by Justice Carol Hunstein earlier this month, the High Court found that Myers could have provided the amount of her medical expenses known at the time of her ante-litem notice and simply stated that she was still undergoing treatment. Justice Hunstein further wrote that “[t]he function of the ante-litem notice is not to ‘bind’ a plaintiff to a certain amount, but to provide notice to the State of the magnitude of the claim, as practicable and to the extent of the claimant’s knowledge and belief” at the time of the notice.”

In Myers, Supreme Court upheld the legislative mandate that claimants include the amount of loss they have allegedly suffered in their ante-litem notice prior to filing suit against the State. Simply put, the Court held that the GTCA means what it says.

Apportionment Prospects Narrowed for Defendants

The topic of apportionment is no stranger to our blog; we have written about the subject on several occasions. The Court of Appeals’ July, 2014 decision on the issue of apportionment, Zaldivar v. Prickett, flatly denies defendants the opportunity to ask the jury to apportion damages to a plaintiff’s employer when the employer allegedly negligently entrusted a company vehicle to plaintiff. 2014 Ga. App. Lexis 552, No. A14A0113, July 16, 2014.

In Zaldivar, plaintiff and defendant got into a left-turn accident in an intersection and both parties blamed each other for causing the accident. Plaintiff was driving his company vehicle at the time of the accident and defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s employer had negligently entrusted that vehicle to plaintiff, given that it had received three anonymous phone calls complaining about plaintiff’s driving. Before trial, defendant filed a notice of non-party fault, alerting plaintiff and the court that it would ask the jury to consider the fault of plaintiff’s employer –in addition to any fault on the part of defendant– when determining who was responsible for plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment on the issue, arguing that the jury should not be allowed to consider plaintiff’s employer’s fault at all. The trial court agreed and defendant appealed before the trial began.

The trial court’s decision was affirmed in the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that under the facts of the case, plaintiff’s employer did nothing to contribute to plaintiff’s damages; it did not breach any duty to plaintiff or proximately cause his injures. Thus, the jury would not be permitted to consider the fault of the employer. The Court’s reasoning seemed to leave open the possibility of apportioning damages to a plaintiff’s employer for negligent entrustment under a different set of facts, yet the Court went on to announce a blanket rule: “[W]e conclude that [the apportionment statute] does not permit the defendant in a motor vehicle personal injury case to include the plaintiff’s employer as a non-party against whom fault can be assessed under the theory of negligent entrustment.” Id. at *8. The Court ultimately concluded that plaintiff’s own negligence would break any causal connection between the employer’s negligence and plaintiff’s damages, therefore making it inappropriate for the jury to consider any fault on behalf of the employer.

Judge Branch wrote a strong dissent, drawing attention to the plain language of the apportionment statute, which discusses the “fault” of a non-party, and specifically separates “liability” as an entirely different legal concept. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(f). The statute allows the jury to assign a percentage of fault to a non-party without imposing any legal liability. Id. The dissent also points out the inequity of the majority rule: if the employee had been sued by the other driver, the employee would be permitted to include this employer on the verdict form to reduce his personal liability. Similarly, if the other driver had sued the employee, that driver could also add the employer as a defendant and sue the employer for negligent entrustment. Under the majority rule, although the case involves the same accident and same parties, the fault of the employer cannot always be considered by the jury.

It is foreseeable that a defendant in a similar case may challenge the Zaldivar decision if there are significant facts to support the allegation that a plaintiff’s employer contributed to plaintiff’s damages by negligently entrusting the vehicle to him (e.g. employer was aware of employee’s multiple prior DUI convictions, but still allowed him to drive the company vehicle). However, for the time being, a jury cannot consider whether a plaintiff’s employer was partially at fault for plaintiff’s damages due to its negligent entrustment of the company vehicle to plaintiff.

Georgia Supreme Court to Weighs in on Amount of Loss Requirement for Ante-Litem Notices

The State of Georgia, including all State agencies like the Department of Human Resources or Department of Transportation, is entitled to sovereign immunity except to the extent sovereign immunity has been waived by the provisions of the Georgia Tort Claims Act (“GTCA”). [See also A Practitioner’s View of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, Georgia State Bar Journal (1992)] The GTCA provides that the exclusive remedy for torts committed by a State employee is an action against the agency. Under the GTCA, the State has agreed to waive sovereign immunity for the torts of State officials and employees subject to certain exceptions and limitations. However, no tort action can be filed against the State without first providing ante-litem notice. O.C.G.A. §50-21-26(a). This is an absolute jurisdictional requirement.

Per the GTCA, the ante-litem notice must be provided to the State within one year after the incident. It must include the name of the state entity the claim will be asserted against, the time and place of the event from which the claim arose, the nature and amount of the loss suffered, and the acts or omissions that allegedly caused the loss. O.C.G.A. §50-21-26(a). The purpose of the ante-litem notice requirement is to give the State the opportunity to investigate the claim, evaluate the claim, and hopefully, facilitate settlement before a lawsuit is filed.

Failure to adhere to the notice requirements subjects a case to being dismissed. Although Georgia courts have held that a claimant must strictly comply with the notice requirements in order to pursue a lawsuit against the State, the courts have also cited the overall purpose of the law to justify a less than hyper-technical adherence to the notice provisions. See Cummings v. Ga.Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (2007); Georgia Ports Auth. v. Harris, 274 Ga.146 (2001).

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the validity of an ante-litem notice despite the claimant’s failure to include the amount of the loss claimed. Myers v. Board of Regents, 324 Ga. App 685 (2013). In Myers, the plaintiff stepped on the edge of a pothole in a parking lot at Dalton State College and sustained a left ankle fracture and torn tendons. She received emergency medical treatment, orthopedic treatment, and physical therapy for her injuries.

The plaintiff sent her ante-litem notice approximately three months after the incident. In her notice, Myers stated that the amount of her loss was “yet to be determined as she is still incurring medical bills and does not yet know the full extent of her injury.” Lawyers for the State challenged the adequacy of the notice. The Georgia Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the case, however, finding that since Myers was still treating at the time her ante-litem notice was sent, she could not reasonably quantify the amount of her damages. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a hyper-technical adherence to the statutory language would have barred the plaintiff’s recovery, and therefore, would not have advanced the purpose of the GTCA. The Court found Myer’s ante-litem notice provided adequate notice of the claim.

One judge dissented, however, stating that Myer’s failure to include any information regarding the amount of her loss claimed frustrated the purpose of the GTCA by preventing the State from evaluating her claim. Myers could have provided the amount of her medical expenses known at the time of her ante-litem notice, the dissent noted, and simply stated that she was still undergoing treatment. The case is now pending in the Georgia Supreme Court.

In another recent case, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the claimant failed to comply with the GTCA when he did not include the amount of loss claimed in his ante-litem notice. Driscoll v. Board of Regents, 326 Ga. App. 315 (2014). In Driscoll, the Court of Appeals stated that while plaintiff’s failure to include the amount of loss claimed in Myers was sufficient due to her on-going treatment, the plaintiff in Driscoll failed to make any mention of the amount of loss, even though they were known and complete at the time. Furthermore, there was nothing about the circumstances of Driscoll’s treatment or loss that prevented him from providing the specific amount of his loss.

These two cases evidence the balancing act the courts take between ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and advancing the legislative intent of the GTCA. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision in Myers, it will effectively negate the legislative mandate that claimants include the amount of loss they have allegedly suffered in an ante-litem notice prior to filing suit against the state, except in the most limited circumstances.

Medicare Discloses Individual Physician Payments

After an intense legal battle regarding the non-transparency of payments made to individual Medicare providers, Medicare data for physician and other healthcare provider payments was released to the public April 9, 2014. Payments to hospitals, institutions, clinical laboratories, and ambulance services, among others were not a part of the report.

The data revealed that the greatest percentage of fees overall were paid for routine office visits but the largest concentration of higher paid fees went to a very small fraction of the 80,000 physicians and healthcare providers enrolled in the Medicare program. These providers collected one quarter of the $77 billion dollars in fees paid under the federal program, with the largest percentage of payments made to ophthalmologists and oncologists.

In 2012, 100 doctors received a total of $160 million. The highest paid were ophthalmologists, mainly for treatment of macular degeneration. Approximately 3,300 ophthalmologists were paid a total of $3.3 billion from Medicare. One Florida ophthalmologist alone collected $21 million.

Analysts predict that fraud investigators and health care insurance plans will be poring over this data in the coming weeks to locate which doctors perform an unusually high volume of services to then determine whether every test or procedure was medically necessary.

Some physicians and medical institutions expressed concerns that some of the data would be misconstrued with regard to the treatment of severely ill patients who suffer, for example, from heart disease or cancer, and for physicians who direct large projects overseeing a substantial number of other doctors or patient populations. One example cited was a physician at the University of Michigan Health Systems who oversees 1,600 primary care physicians, who each receive a small payment each month.

Ophthalmologists also claim that their high representation in the figures quoted is misleading because a large percentage of the fees pad goes to the cost of drugs they administer for patient treatment, which, in turn, is paid to drug companies. Read more about the data behind Medicare’s payouts to physicians.

The Atlanta healthcare attorneys at Levy Pruett Cullen. represent physicians and other healthcare professionals with Medicare and Medicaid issues. Contact us if you believe you may be subject to an audit, appeal, or fraud prosecution.

Economic Influence Behind Organized Medicine’s Opposition

Economic influence is the prime factor behind organized medicine's opposition to expanding scopes of practice for healthcare professionals regulated by licensing laws.

Princeton Economics professor Uwe Rhinehart quotes Milton Friedman's classic book "Capitalism and Freedom," published in 1962, in the New York Times' econimix blog post to question whether economic influences are the predominant factors prompting organized medicine to oppose wider scopes of practice regulated by licensing laws. You can view the article in its entirety here.

Georgia healthcare attorney Frances Cullen routinely represents physicians and other healthcare providers in proceedings before the Georgia Composite Medical Board, including applications, investigations, hearings, and appeals.

Plaintiff's Verdict in Trip And Fall Case Reduced Due to Evidence of Intoxication

In a recent case, Jarvis v. Georgia World Congress Center Authority et al., No. 10EV010884, a Fulton County jury delivered an initial verdict of $400,000 against the Defendant security company for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Alicia Jarvis, outside the Georgia Dome. The verdict was subsequently reduced after the panel assigned 43% of the liability to Plaintiff on the grounds that she was intoxicated at the time of her fall.

Evidence revealed that Plaintiff had been tailgating and drinking before a Falcons’ game. Plaintiff, in an attempt to avoid the long lines at the admission gates, decided to take a short-cut suggested by a security worker at the stadium. The short-cut involved crossing a pine straw berm outside of the stadium. As Plaintiff was navigating the short-cut, she tripped and fell, breaking her ankle. Witnesses stated that Plaintiff smelled of alcohol. Records also indicated that she had had beer, as well as rum drinks, that day before the fall. Plaintiff rested without calling any liability experts.

During voir dire (jury selection), the Fulton County jury panel had expressed concerns about their ability to be fair and impartial when they heard alcohol was involved, but ultimately, the jury did not find that the evidence of Plaintiff’s intoxication barred recovery. Instead, that evidence was used to reduce her recovery by almost half, still resulting in a recovery of $228,000.

This case exemplifies the age-old maxim: No good deed goes unpunished. The bigger lesson for our clients in these cases, however, lies in the jury’s failure to find that Plaintiff’s intoxication constituted negligence equal to that of the security guard. Insurance companies should take note of this case when setting reserves.

Court Rejects Plaintiff's Speculative Liability Theories in Slip and Fall Case

In the recent case Pirkle v. QuikTrip Corp., 2014 Ga. App. Lexis 34, the Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the Defendant QuikTrip on the grounds that Plaintiff’s evidence of the Defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of liquid on the floor was speculative at best.

In this case, Plaintiff, Carlos Pirkle, claimed that he slipped and fell on water located next to the checkout counter of the store. Plaintiff’s evidence as to QuikTrip’s actual knowledge of the liquid consisted of witness testimony stating (1) that a store employee placed a bucket and mop to the right side of the checkout counter shortly before Pirkle’s fall, and (2) that another customer had dropped a package of bottled water near the area where Pirkle fell shortly before the incident. However, there were no reports of any spills or liquid on the floor prior to Pirkle’s fall and Plaintiff even testified that he did not recall seeing any water in the area of his fall when he entered the store. The video from QuikTrip’s security camera showed Pirkle walk into the store and several other customers walk in the same area where Pirkle’s fall occurred.

The Court held that Plaintiff’s evidence was speculative, at best, as to what caused Pirkle’s fall and, therefore, did not establish actual knowledge. To rebut Plaintiff’s claims as to constructive notice, QuikTrip produced inspection logs which showed that an employee performed an inspection of the floors every 30 minutes, one having been performed in the specific area of Pirkle’s fall just 8 minutes prior to the incident. The Court held that where the property owner can prove that an inspection occurred “within a brief period” before an invitee’s fall, the inspection procedure will be deemed adequate and reasonable.

The defense of this case was helped in large part by the maintenance of routine inspection records and video surveillance. We should continue to advise our property owner clients of the importance of maintaining such records and how doing so can defeat a plaintiff’s claim that the owner had knowledge of a dangerous condition.

Georgia Legislature to Consider Bill That Would Allow Evidence of Seatbelt Use at Trial

In Georgia, front seat passengers are required to use a seatbelt under most circumstances. O.C.G.A. §§ 40-8-76.1(b) and (c). Even so, under current Georgia law, when an individual is injured during an automobile accident, the fact that he was not wearing a seatbelt is not admissible to show that he caused or contributed to his own injuries. O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d). From the defense perspective, the law creates an “unfair” burden on the driver responsible for the accident by not allowing him to show the jury that the plaintiff may have made his injuries worse by choosing not to wear a seatbelt, even though it is required by law.

Consider the following example:

John and Jessica, both healthy individuals in their mid 20’s, are riding in the front seat of John’s Toyota Camry. John is wearing his seatbelt and Jessica is not. John slows down to stop at a red light. Unfortunately, Erica, the driver of the vehicle behind John, does not see that the light has turned red and hits John’s car square in the rear while driving about 45 mph. John walks away from the accident with muscle soreness and a couple of cuts and bruises. On the other hand, Jessica was thrown forward out of her seat and hit her head very hard on the front windshield. Jessica has serious injuries, including two fractured vertebra in her neck, a broken wrist and a deep facial laceration. John and Jessica both go to the emergency room by ambulance. John is released the same day and ends up with about $2,500 in medical expenses. Due to her serious injuries, Jessica remains in the hospital for approximately three weeks. During this time, she undergoes neck surgery, wrist surgery and plastic surgery to repair the cut on her face. Jessica also requires several weeks of physical therapy for her neck and wrist and will continue to experience pain for many years to come. Jessica will also be at a higher risk for getting arthritis in the future. Jessica’s medical expenses total $250,000 – one hundred times the amount of John’s medical bills.

What if Jessica had been wearing her seatbelt? Would her head have struck the windshield? Would she have broken her neck? Would she have required surgery? Would she have incurred $250,000 in medical bills? Or, would her injuries have been similar to John’s injuries? These are all questions the jury would not be able to consider under current Georgia law. The jury would not hear any evidence that Jessica was not wearing her seatbelt, even though Jessica’s decision likely contributed to the extent of her injuries.

In the upcoming legislative session, the House of Representatives will consider two bills that would modify the current seatbelt statute; HB 504 and HB 532. Each bill allows a party to introduce evidence of an individual’s failure to use a seatbelt if the court finds that (1) the defense was pled before the entry of a pre-trial order, and (2) the front seat passenger is at least 14 years of age. There are a few minor differences in the bills, however. HB 532 requires expert testimony to establish that failure to use a seatbelt contributed to the individual’s injuries, while HB 502 allows the court to make such a finding without the introduction of expert testimony. Additionally, while both bills provide for a reduction of damages to the extent that the failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to the individual’s injury, HB 532 allows the injured individual to recover all of the damages attributable to other parties even if the individual is 50% or more responsible for his own injuries. Typically, this type of claim would be barred by Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33.

Needless to say, if either HB 504 or HB 532 are signed into law, it would be a great victory for the defense bar. Even so, it is likely that the new law would apply only to accidents that occur after the law’s effective date; therefore, it will take some time for the law to have a real effect on litigation matters.

Emergency Medical Services and The Applicable Standard of Care

In July, 2013, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Johnson v. Omondi. 318 Ga. App. 787 (2012). Johnson is a medical malpractice case where plaintiffs, the parents of a hospital patient, sued multiple defendants when the patient died after receiving care in the emergency room. The patient had knee surgery and presented to the emergency room eight days later complaining of chest pain. The doctors performed many tests and the patient was sent home after the pain resolved. Two weeks later, the symptoms resurfaced and the patient returned to the emergency room. He later died from a bilateral pulmonary embolism. The trial court granted summary judgment to the doctor on the plaintiffs’ professional negligence claim and plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeals applied a “gross negligence” standard, given that the doctor was providing emergency care at the time of the patient’s death and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the doctor based on the fact that Plaintiffs could not prove “by clear and convincing evidence that [the doctor] failed to exercise even slight care in treating [the patient].” The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether “the Court of Appeals err[ed] in its application of the gross negligence standard for emergency room malpractice under OCGA § 51-1-29.5(c).” The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by the end of the year. The Court’s ruling could narrow the circumstances under which a medical professional is considered to be providing emergency medical services, in which case, the “gross negligence” standard of care may apply in fewer cases in the future. This will be detrimental to healthcare providers, as it would hold them to a higher standard of care in situations that are arguably emergent.