MARSHALL, Presiding Justice. This is a medical-malpractice case which is here on certiorari. Hayes v. Murray, 169 Ga. App. 78 ( 311 S.E.2d 477) (1983). It concerns the sufficiency of an expert affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Further, although the affidavit states that it is "based upon my personal knowledge and belief," the affidavit is devoid of any discussion of the particulars in which the affiant believed the defendant/appellee was negligent. Pretermitting the question of certification of the one medical report in the record and any probative value it may have, appellant's expert affidavit is insufficient for failure to identify the specific medical records used as the basis of the affiant's opinion, Hayes v. Murray, 169 Ga. App. 78, 79 (2) ( 311 S.E.2d 477) (1983), and for failure to state the particulars in which the affiant believed the defendant/appellee was negligent to support the affiant's statement that the affidavit was made on personal knowledge. See Hayes v. Murray, 252 Ga. 529 ( 314 S.E.2d 885) (1984), Childs, supra at 758 (2). Consequently, appellant has failed to set out specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact remaining and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Dr. Van Camerick's affidavit states that he reviewed the medical records and other documents surrounding the care and treatment afforded Oletha Boatwright by Dr. Eddings and that he had sufficient personal knowledge to give the affidavit, and from his personal experience as a medical doctor and after a review of the records, her diagnosis and treatment fell below the recognized and accepted standard of care required of physicians and surgeons generally. As in Jones v. Rodzewicz, 165 Ga. App. 635 ( 302 S.E.2d 402) (1983) and Hayes v. Murray, 169 Ga. App. 78 ( 311 S.E.2d 477) (1983), reversed, 252 Ga. 529 ( 314 S.E.2d 885) (1984), the affidavit sets forth the particulars in which the defendant's treatment of the plaintiff was negligent and none of the medical records were attached to the affidavit. As in Hayes v. Murray, supra, we find that to the extent the affidavit is based on the medical records, it lacks any probative value.

The record discloses no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to consider appellant's untimely affidavit. See Hayes v. Murray, 169 Ga. App. 78 (1) ( 311 S.E.2d 477) (1983). In any event, since the subject affidavit related only to the alleged negligence of Dr. Zilis, any error in its exclusion here was harmless.