Thomas v. Tenet Healthsystem GB, Inc. — Jan. 2017 (Summary)

MALPRACTICE PHYSICIAN AND HOSPITAL

Thomas v. Tenet Healthsystem GB, Inc.
No. A16A2167 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2017)

The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a former patient’s amended complaint against a hospital.  The patient was taken to the hospital after being involved in a car accident and, upon arrival, the attending physician requested that a cervical CT scan be taken.  The scan was sent to a physician, who reviewed the scan at his home.  The physician communicated from his home to the attending physician that there were no fractures present in the scan.  Subsequently, the attending physician directed a nurse to remove the patient’s cervical spine collar and discharge the patient from the hospital.  When the patient’s brother arrived to pick her up, the patient was slumped over and unresponsive.  After being readmitted, it was discovered that the patient did in fact have a fracture in her cervical spine, and the removal of her cervical spine collar resulted in neurological damage, which rendered the patient a quadriplegic.

During discovery, the patient discovered that the hospital had a policy requiring physicians to remove cervical spine collars, and the nurse who removed her cervical spine collar had been trained on the policy.  Consequently, the patient sought to amend her complaint, alleging negligence against the hospital.  The lower court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The court reasoned that because the patient’s original complaint alleged that the collar was removed by the hospital’s personnel, the hospital had fair notice of the same general fact situation from which the simple negligence claim arose.  In addition, both the original and amended complaints set out allegations about the improper removal of the cervical spine collar by an employee of the hospital, so the claim in the amended complaint arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original complaint.  Thus, the court reversed the judgment of the lower court and allowed the patient to amend her complaint.