Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, P.C

5 Citing cases

  1. Albany Urology Clinic v. Cleveland

    272 Ga. 296 (Ga. 2000)   Cited 38 times
    In Albany Urology Clinic v. Cleveland, 272 Ga. 296 (528 S.E.2d 777) (2000), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court in Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, 235 Ga. App. 838 (509 S.E.2d 664) (1998).

    Leonard A. Nelson, Harold G. Clarke, TROUTMAN SANDERS, John E. Hall Jr., Jonathan Marigliano, HALL, BOOTH, SMITH SLOVER, P.C., Emmet J. Bondurant, Michael Brian Terry, BONDURANT, MIXSON ELMORE, David A. Cook, William T. Clark, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, E. Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr., M.D., Thomas S. Carlock, WEBB, CARLOCK, COPELAND, SEMLER STAIR, Robert E. Whitley, William Merrill Earnest Jr., THRASHER, WHITLEY, HAMPTON MORGAN, Jack S. Schroder Jr., Angela Therese Burnette, ALSTON BIRD, for amicus appellant. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 235 Ga. App. 838. Watson, Spence, Lowe Chambless, Thomas S. Chambless, Dawn O. Benson, Donaldson, Bell Pickett, George P. Donaldson III, Tillman, McTier, Coleman Talley, Wade H. Coleman, for appellants.

  2. Labovitz v. Hopkinson

    271 Ga. 330 (Ga. 1999)   Cited 54 times
    Concluding that, in enacting Georgia's similar statute, Ga.Code. Ann. § 9–11–9.1, “the legislative intent was to enact a statute which sought to reduce the number of frivolous professional malpractice actions by placing a procedural hurdle before those plaintiffs who sought damages for professional negligence. Those claims grounded on a professional's intentional acts which allegedly resulted in injury to one with whom the professional had a professional relationship are not required to be accompanied by an expert affidavit”

    When § 9-11-9.1 is construed as applicable only to actions alleging professional negligence, the appellate courts have held that it is unnecessary to file an expert affidavit with a complaint filed against a professional if the complaint alleges the commission of an injurious intentional act by the professional during the existence of a professional relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. See, e.g., Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, 235 Ga. App. 838 (2) ( 509 S.E.2d 664) (1998), cert. granted, S99G0600 (no § 9-11-9.1 affidavit necessary to support allegation of battery against physician as allegation is not one of negligence); Boggs v. Bosley Med. Inst., 228 Ga. App. 598 ( 492 S.E.2d 264) (1997) (no § 9-11-9.

  3. Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic

    546 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)

    BARNES, Judge. In Albany Urology Clinic v. Cleveland, 272 Ga. 296 ( 528 S.E.2d 777) (2000), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court in Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, 235 Ga. App. 838 ( 509 S.E.2d 664) (1998). Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own.

  4. Johnson v. Rodier

    242 Ga. App. 496 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 23 times

    (Citations omitted.) Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, 235 Ga. App. 838, 840 (1) ( 509 S.E.2d 664) (1998); cert. granted, S99G0600. The tort of fraud has five elements: a false representation by a defendant, scienter, intention to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and damage to plaintiff.

  5. Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Associates, P.C.

    239 Ga. App. 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    OCGA § 31-9-6(d). As this Court recently noted in Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic P. C., 235 Ga. App. 838 ( 509 S.E.2d 664) (1998), [w]here a confidential relationship exists, as here, a person's silence when he should speak, or his failure to disclose what he ought to disclose, is as much a fraud in law as an actual affirmative false representation.