Craigo v. Azizi

19 Citing cases

  1. Zeh v. Maso

    366 Ga. App. 890 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Neither party has cited case law holding that care provided as a student before obtaining a professional degree can constitute the "active practice" of a profession under OCGA § 24-7-702 (c) (2) (A), and we have found none. The Northside defendants rely on Emory-Adventist, Inc. v. Hunter , 301 Ga. App. 215, 219 (1), 687 S.E.2d 267 (2009) and Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga. App. 181, 185 (2), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) in support of their argument that the fact that Knoblauch was in training for part of the three-year period before the alleged malpractice does not affect her competency to testify as an expert. In Emory-Adventist , this Court considered whether a physician must be licensed to engage in the "active practice" of medicine.

  2. Zeh v. Maso

    No. A22A1289 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023)

    Neither party has cited case law holding that care provided as a student before obtaining a professional degree can constitute the "active practice" of a profession under OCGA § 24-7-702 (c) (2) (A), and we have found none. The Northside defendants rely on Emory-Adventist, Inc. v. Hunter, 301 Ga.App. 215, 219 (1) (687 S.E.2d 267) (2009) and Craigo v. Azizi, 301 Ga.App. 181, 185 (2) (687 S.E.2d 198) (2009) in support of their argument that the fact that Knoblauch was in training for part of the three year period before the alleged malpractice does not affect her competency to testify as an expert. In Emory-Adventist, this Court considered whether a physician must be licensed to engage in the "active practice" of medicine.

  3. Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

    332 Ga. App. 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    (Emphasis supplied.) See Craigo v. Azizi, 301 Ga.App. 181, 182(1), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009). See id. at 182 –183(1), 687 S.E.2d 198.

  4. Munro v. Ga. Dep't of Transp.

    368 Ga. App. 785 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   1 Legal Analyses

    So, although the trial court denied as moot the DOT's motion to exclude Hill's testimony on this basis, we will consider the OCGA § 24-7-702 (c) (1) argument in our review of the grant of the motion to dismiss. See Merchant Law Firm v. Emerson , 301 Ga. 609, 614 (1) (c), 615 (2) (a), 616 (2) (b), 800 S.E.2d 557 (2017) (affirming dismissal of three of appellant's claims as right for any reason); Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga. App. 181, 187 (3), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) (affirming as right for any reason the dismissal of complaint on the basis of expert's failure to satisfy former OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (c) (1), the predecessor to OCGA § 24-7-702 (c) (1) ). Hill was not licensed as a professional engineer until 1969, which, the parties agree, was after the intersection had been designed.

  5. Stanford v. City of Atlanta

    361 Ga. App. 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Declining to apply the right for any reason rule, reversing the trial court's order dismissing the complaint, and remanding for the trial court to reconsider the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims

    See City of Gainesville v. Dodd , 275 Ga. 834, 835, 573 S.E.2d 369 (2002) ("Under the ‘right for any reason’ rule, an appellate court will affirm a judgment if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason is different than the reason upon which the trial court relied."). See also Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga. App. 181, 187 (3), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) (dismissal of complaint affirmed under right for any reason rule). However, the "right for any reason" doctrine is just one of several principles this Court must consider in connection with "the circumstances of individual appeals."

  6. Graham v. Reynolds

    343 Ga. App. 274 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a doctor was competent to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care applicable to a doctor in another specialty when the expert had the requisite knowledge and experience under Rule 702 to give expert testimony regarding the acts or omissions of a doctor in another specialty

    Contrary to Graham's argument on appeal, "[i]t is irrelevant whether or not evidence was offered at the hearing." Craigo v. Azizi, 301 Ga. App. 181, 183 (1), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009). As detailed below, the trial court did not abuse his discretion in finding Cuoco competent to testify.

  7. Nasir v. Gwinnett Cnty. State Court

    341 Ga. App. 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed those civil rights claims. See Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga.App. 181, 187 (3), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) (dismissal of complaint affirmed under right for any reason rule).Reading the complaint generously in light of Nasir's pro se status, it can be said that one of his civil rights claims is for damages for unlawfully denying his request to restrict or expunge his record.

  8. Fields v. Taylor

    340 Ga. App. 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    When a trial court has conducted a hearing pursuant to OCGA § 24-7-702 (d) to determine the admissibility of an expert's testimony, we review the trial court's determination for an abuse of discretion. See Craigo v. Azizi , 301 Ga.App. 181, 183 (1), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) ; Hendrix v. Fulton Dekalb Hosp. Authority , 330 Ga.App. 833, 836, 769 S.E.2d 575 (2015) (physical precedent only). (a) In his first enumeration of error, Taylor argues that the testimony of Fields's experts should have been excluded because they failed to review certified medical records.

  9. Fuciarelli v. McKinney

    333 Ga. App. 577 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834, 835, 573 S.E.2d 369 (2002) (“Under the ‘right for any reason’ rule, an appellate court will affirm a judgment if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason is different than the reason upon which the trial court relied.”) (citation omitted). See also Craigo v. Azizi, 301 Ga.App. 181, 187(3), 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009) (dismissal of complaint affirmed under right for any reason rule). A summary judgment “must be affirmed if it is right for any reason, whether stated or unstated in the trial court's order, so long as the movant raised the issue in the trial court and the nonmovant had a fair opportunity to respond.”

  10. Hendrix v. Fulton Dekalb Hosp. Auth..

    330 Ga. App. 833 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Where the expert's affidavit fails to meet the requirements of OCGA § 24–7–702(c), the affidavit is insufficient, and the complaint is subject to dismissal. Craigo v. Azizi, 301 Ga.App. 181, 182, 687 S.E.2d 198 (2009). Because the trial court conducted a hearing under OCGA § 24–7–702(d) to determine the expert affiant's competence to testify, the court's determination on this issue is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Craigo, 301 Ga.App. at 182–183, 687 S.E.2d 198.