Olga Zarate-Martinez filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Michael Echemendia and related health care entities “the Defendants” seeking damages for injuries she sustained as a result of an allegedly negligent tubal ligation. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike Zarate-Martinez’s expert affidavit and dismissed her complaint on the ground that she failed to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.1 because the expert affiant did not qualify under OCGA § 24-7-702 c. Zarate-Martinez appeals, contending that the trial court erred because 1 affiant Nancy Hendrix, M.D., met the requirements of Code section 702, 2 witness Charles Ward, M.D., also met the requirements of Code section 702, 3 other evidence in the record created fact questions and established the “pronounced results” exception to the requirement for expert testimony, and 4 OCGA § 24-7-702 c 2 A and B are unconstitutional. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The complaint alleged that Dr. Echemendia was Zarate-Martinez’s physician for several years, and on April 24, 2006, Dr. Echemendia performed an out-patient open laporoscopic tubal ligation procedure on Zarate-Martinez. Zarate-Martinez went home on the same day of the surgery. Over the next few days, Zarate-Martinez developed increasing pain, nausea, and fever. On April 28, 2006, Zarate-Martinez went to the emergency room, was admitted to the hospital, and underwent an exploratory laparotomy, which determined that the lower portion of Zarate-Martinez’s small intestine was perforated. The perforation was surgically repaired, and she remained in the hospital for further treatment until May 6, 2006.
