Shekhawat v. Jones

The sole issue in determining whether an individual state employee may be liable as a defendant in a tort suit is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment with the state in committing the allegedly tortious act.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether physicians employed as faculty members at the Medical College of Georgia “MCG” were entitled to official immunity in treating a patient at MCG’s Children’s Medical Center. Appellees Kenneth Jones and Clara Ramon, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor son, “Plaintiffs” filed a medical malpractice action against Appellants Prem Singh Shekhawat, M.D. and Wayne Mathews, M.D., along with other defendants, arising from treatment rendered to Plaintiffs’ child at the Children’s Medical Center in December 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Appellants, concluding that they were entitled to official immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellants, in treating Plaintiffs’ child, were acting within the scope of their employment with the State under the analysis utilized by this Court in Keenan v. Plouffe, 267 Ga. 791 482 SE2d 253 1997. Jones v. Allen, 312 Ga. App. 762 720 SE2d 1 2011. We granted certiorari to review Keenan’s application, and we now conclude that Keenan must be overruled, because it conflates our standard for official immunity with that for sovereign immunity. Utilizing the proper analysis, we hold that Appellants were entitled to official immunity because they were acting within the scope of their state employment in rendering the medical care at issue. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

“On appeal from the grant of summary judgment this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Cmty. Serv. Bd., 273 Ga. 715, 717-718 4 545 SE2d 875 2001. So viewed, the relevant evidence shows as follows.

Shekhawat v. Jones

The sole issue in determining whether an individual state employee may be liable as a defendant in a tort suit is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment with the state in committing the allegedly tortious act.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report