Deborah and Robert Craigo sued Dr. Mohammad Daud Azizi and his employer, Gwinnett Anesthesia Services, P. C. defendants, for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. The Craigos alleged that on October 16, 2006, Dr. Azizi served as the anesthesiologist when Deborah Craigo underwent orthopedic surgery; that Dr. Azizi administered a general anesthetic to Ms. Craigo and then, while she was under general anesthesia, performed an interscalene nerve block; and that by administering the general anesthetic prior to performing the nerve block, Dr. Azizi breached the standard of care and caused Ms. Craigo injury. The Craigos supported their complaint with an affidavit from Dr. Jeff C. Gadsden, an anesthesiologist, who opined that Dr. Azizi had deviated from the acceptable standard of care in administering the nerve block to Ms. Craigo while she was under a general anesthetic; and that this deviation from the standard of care resulted in the injury of which she complained, paralysis of the right hemidiaphragm. Defendants answered and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the affidavit was insufficient under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 because Dr. Gadsden was not qualified under OCGA § 24-9-67.1. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Craigos filed an amended affidavit from Dr. Gadsden. The motion was set down by rule nisi for a hearing. At the hearing, the trial court heard oral argument, but no evidence was offered or admitted. After the hearing, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the Craigos appeal. We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that Dr. Gadsden did not meet the expert-witness qualification requirements set forth in OCGA § 24-9-67.1. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the Craigos’ complaint.
1. Under OCGA § 9-11-9.1 a, the plaintiff in a professional malpractice action is required to attach to the complaint the affidavit of an expert “setting out the act of negligence underlying the claim.”1 The expert providing the affidavit must meet the requirements for an expert witness set forth in OCGA § 24-9-67.1.2 Where the affiant fails to meet those requirements, the affidavit is insufficient; and the complaint is subject to dismissal.3 “Usually dismissals are subject to de novo review. But the interplay of the two Code sections means that, when the trial court has had the hearing contemplated by OCGA § 24-9-67.1 d as in this case, our review determines only whether the trial court has abused its discretion.”4
