Williams v. Regency Hospital Company, LLC et al.

Facts

Andreana Williams, as guardian and conservator of Michelle Hewett, filed a lawsuit against Regency Hospital Company, LLC; Regency Hospital Company of Macon, LLC; and Jacquita Baldwin. 

The claims were based on medical negligence and care provided to Hewett at Regency Macon between September 23, 2020, and October 22, 2020. Hewett, a patient with severe conditions who became permanently incapacitated on September 4, 2020, was treated at the facility, where her tongue condition worsened due to lack of proper care and interventions. This led to her requiring a partial tongue amputation. Williams alleged that the defendants failed to meet the standard of care and sought damages.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice under OCGA § 9-3-71(a) and that the tolling provisions for mentally incompetent plaintiffs under OCGA § 9-3-90(a) were inapplicable due to OCGA § 9-3-73(b). 

Williams responded with an equal protection challenge, asserting that OCGA § 9-3-73(b) unlawfully discriminates against mentally incompetent plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions compared to other types of cases. The trial court dismissed the claims, and Williams appealed.

Issues & Holdings

1. Constitutionality of OCGA § 9-3-73(b)

Did the trial court err in rejecting Williams’s equal protection challenge to the statute barring tolling for mentally incompetent plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases?

Holding: No. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling, citing binding precedent from Deen v. Stevens.

2. Ordinary Negligence vs. Medical Malpractice

Did the complaint adequately allege claims of ordinary negligence separate from medical malpractice?

Holding: No. The Court of Appeals concluded that the claims were entirely within the realm of professional negligence.

Reasoning

1. Constitutionality of OCGA § 9-3-73(b)

The appellate court acknowledged that OCGA § 9-3-73(b) eliminates tolling provisions for mentally incompetent plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases but noted that the Georgia Supreme Court had previously upheld this provision as constitutional in Deen v. Stevens, 287 Ga. 597 (2010). 

In Deen, the Georgia Supreme Court held that this statute survived a rational basis review. Specifically, Deen states that it is rationally related to the legislature’s legitimate objectives in enacting the law, such as stabilizing medical malpractice insurance costs and preventing stale claims. As the Court of Appeals was bound to follow Deen, it rejected the Equal Protection challenge.

The court affirmed that the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice under OCGA § 9-3-71(a) applied. Because the alleged negligence occurred between September and October 2020 and the complaint was filed in April 2023, the claims were time-barred.

2. Nature of the Claims: Professional Negligence v. Ordinary Care

Williams argued that the defendants’ failure to provide bite blocks and proper oral care constituted ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice. However, the appellate court found that the complaint described failures tied to professional judgment and medical decision-making, such as assessing Hewett’s condition and determining appropriate interventions. These actions required specialized medical knowledge, placing the claims squarely within the scope of a professional negligence claim.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case, holding that the constitutional challenge to OCGA § 9-3-73(b) was precluded by binding precedent and that all claims fell within the scope of medical malpractice, subject to the two-year statute of limitations. This decision underscores the challenges plaintiffs face in navigating the statutory framework for medical malpractice claims, particularly for mentally incompetent individuals.

For attorneys, the ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between professional and ordinary negligence and filing claims within applicable limitations periods. The decision also reinforces the limited scope of constitutional challenges to Georgia’s medical malpractice statutes.

Citation: Williams v. Regency Hospital Company, LLC et al., No. A24A1035 (Ga. Ct. App. October 7, 2024)