Ronnie and Lynette Thomas appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic, P.C. and Ashok S. Reddy, M. D. collectively, “Peachtree Orthopaedic” in this medical malpractice action. The Thomases also contend that the trial court erred in excluding one of their expert witnesses and challenge the trial court’s failure to reserve ruling on certain motions until after the judge presiding over their bankruptcy case approved a new attorney for them. For reasons that follow, we affirm. A review of the protracted procedural history of this case shows that the Thomases filed their initial malpractice complaint against Peachtree Orthopaedic on March 24, 2004. They dismissed the first complaint without prejudice on November 24, 2004, and re-filed that lawsuit on May 18, 2005. On April 20, 2006, the trial court entered a notice scheduling the trial for May 22, 2006. The parties then filed a joint motion for continuance, which the trial court granted, placing the case on an August 2006 trial calendar.
Thereafter, the parties submitted a joint proposed “Case Management Order” in which they self-imposed numerous deadlines, and the trial court entered the order on July 12, 2006. The order, which was consented to by the parties, specifically cautioned that the parties are to immediately notify the Court via telephone of any problem or dispute disagreements about discovery, scheduling difficulties, the unavailability of a witness, illness, the late addition of parties or claims, etc. that could delay the deadlines or hearing dates that may be set forth herein. Modification of any deadline or hearing date contained herein requires approval of the Court —even if all parties consent to the change. Requests that the Court extend a deadline or hearing date should be made as early as the need becomes apparent. Failure to abide by this Case Management Order may result in a dismissal or default judgment. The order provided that discovery would be completed by October 20, 2006. The plaintiffs were required to identify all expert witnesses on or before June 15, 2006. The order also required that any dispositive and/or Daubert motions be filed no later than November 20, 2006 and that the plaintiffs’ responses thereto be filed no later than December 20, 2006. The parties were required to submit a proposed pre-trial order no later than December 22, 2006, and the trial was then specially set for January 22, 2007.
