Fisher contends that, pursuant to the cure provision of OCGA § 9–11–9.1(e), he cured the deficiency in the affidavit filed with his original complaint by filing an amended complaint with a substitute affidavit from a new expert, citing Piscitelli v. Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta, 302 Ga.App. 746, 752, 691 S.E.2d 615 (2010). As in this case, the trial court in Piscitelli “was called upon to determine whether dismissalwas warranted under OCGA § 9–11–9.1 for failure to satisfy the requirements set forth by OCGA § 24–9–67.1(c)(2) and (e)” regarding an affiant's competency to testify in a medical malpractice action.

Fisher contends that, pursuant to the cure provision of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (e), he cured the deficiency in the affidavit filed with his original complaint by filing an amended complaint with a substitute affidavit from a new expert, citing Piscitelli v. Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta, 302 Ga. App. 746, 752 (691 SE2d 615) (2010). As in this case, the trial court in Piscitelli "was called upon to determine whether dismissal was warranted under OCGA § 9-11-9.

Such cases include Houston. See also Piscitelli v. Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta c, 302 Ga. App. 746 ( 691 SE2d 615) (2010). We note, however, that all of the authorities cited by Houston for the proposition that "notice pleading" rules still apply predate the passage of OCGA § 24-9-67.