Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Alicea

The immunity afforded to health care providers and facilities under the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act applies only where the health care provider or facility was making a good faith effort to rely on the decisions and directions of the health care agent when treating the declarant, but nevertheless failed to comply with the agent's direction.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In March 2012, Jacqueline Alicea’s 91-year-old grandmother, Bucilla Stephenson, died at the end of a two-week stay at Doctors Hospital of Augusta, LLC Hospital. In May 2013, Alicea, acting as the administratix of her grandmother’s estate, sued the Hospital and Dr. Phillip Catalano collectively, Defendants. Alicea alleged among other things that they intubated her grandmother and put her on a mechanical ventilator, which prolonged her life when she was in a terminal condition and caused her unnecessary pain and suffering, contrary to her advance directive for health care and the specific directions of Alicea, her designated health care agent. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing among other things that OCGA § 31-32-10 a 2 and 3, a part of the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act Advance Directive Act or Act, see Ga. L. 2007, p.133, provided them immunity from liability. The trial court rejected the immunity argument and denied summary judgment on that ground.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the portion of the order denying immunity. See Doctors Hospital of Augusta, LLC v. Alicea, 332 Ga. App. 529, 536-543 774 SE2d 114 2015. This Court then granted the Defendants’ petition for certiorari to review that aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision. As explained below, we endorse much of what the Court of Appeals said about the immunity analysis in Division 1 of its opinion, although we conclude that the court skipped over one important point. The correct analysis makes it even clearer, however, that the Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on their claim of immunity under OCGA § 31-32-10 a 2 and 3, and we therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment as to that issue. See WMW, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 291 Ga. 683, 683 733 SE2d 269 2012 affirming the Court of Appeals’ judgment on certiorari under the right-for-any-reason doctrine.

Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Alicea

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report