This case regards the proper application of the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action. In Lee v. McCord , 292 Ga. App. 707 665 SE2d 414 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Dale McCord and Atlanta Oncology Associates “AOA”, finding that McCord and AOA “failed to show as a matter of law, that Floyd Lee manifested symptoms of an injury caused by the alleged negligence more than two years before his suit was filed.” Id. at 707. We granted certiorari to determine whether, in reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals erred by utilizing the “new injury” exception to the general rule for determining commencement of the limitations period in negligent misdiagnosis cases, even though this case does not involve a misdiagnosis. See Cleaveland v. Gannon , 284 Ga. 376 667 SE2d 366 2008; Amu v. Barnes , 283 Ga. 549 662 SE2d 113 2008; Baskette v. Atlanta Center for Reproductive Medicine , 285 Ga. App. 876, 878 1 648 SE2d 100 2007. For the reasons set forth below, we answer this question affirmatively.
In summarized form,1 the facts of this case show that Lee was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and, following a referral, he was treated by McCord, a radiation oncologist approved by Lee’s insurance carrier. A physicist employed by AOA developed Lee’s treatment plan, which required the implantation of radioactive seeds in his prostate, and McCord executed the treatment procedure on December 28, 2001. On March 14, 2002, another physicist reviewed an image of Lee’s prostate and determined that the seeds had not been properly positioned. Although Lee’s prostate specific antigen levels initially lowered after the procedure, they steadily rose until, in August 2004, doctors other than McCord performed a second radioactive seed implant to treat Lee’s cancer. A board-certified radiation oncologist testified that the dose of radiation delivered to Lee in December 2001 was “considerably less than the targeted dose,” and that McCord breached the applicable standards of care by improperly placing the seeds inside and outside Lee’s prostate and by failing to advise Lee or his treating urologist promptly about the improper placement. The oncologist further opined that the misplaced radioactive seeds delivered unnecessary radiation to healthy tissue inside and outside Lee’s prostate.
