Ann Royston Dove initially filed a medical-malpractice action on behalf of her deceased mother’s estate against a nursing home operated by Ty Cobb Healthcare Systems, Inc. In Dove v. Ty Cobb Healthcare Systems, Inc. 1 Dove I , we affirmed the trial court’s grant of the nursing home’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that the majority of Dove’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Thereafter, Dove amended her complaint by stating the same facts but alleging that such facts amounted to simple negligence rather than professional negligence. Dove now appeals an order dismissing her amended complaint, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that the majority of her claims were precluded by res judicata and that her remaining claims required dismissal because they still alleged professional negligence but were no longer supported by an expert affidavit. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm the trial court’s ruling that the majority of Dove’s claims are precluded by res judicata , but we reverse the dismissal of Dove’s remaining claims and remand the case for further proceedings. The relevant facts as summarized in Dove I show that Dove’s 81-year-old mother was admitted to the nursing home in 2000.2 Shortly thereafter, Dove began to observe incidents suggesting that the nursing home staff had rendered professionally negligent care to her mother.3 And over the course of the next five years 2000-2005, Dove cataloged numerous injuries that her mother allegedly suffered as a result of the nursing staff’s professional negligence.4 Nevertheless, Dove’s mother remained at the nursing home until she passed away in February 2007.5
In May 2007, Dove filed suit on behalf of her mother’s estate against the nursing home, alleging that the nursing staff had deviated from the professional standard of care in her mother’s treatment and, after amending, that the staff had misrepresented how some of her mother’s injuries occurred.6 The nursing home filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Dove’s claims based upon alleged incidents that occurred prior to May 2005 were barred by the statute of limitation.7 The trial court granted the nursing home’s motion, and we affirmed, holding that even if the nursing home had engaged in fraud, the two-year statute of limitation was not tolled because Dove knew all the facts necessary to show malpractice before the running of the limitation period.8
