Howell v. Shumans

No professional affidavit was required to support the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants invaded her privacy and breached their duty to maintain the confidentiality of her health information when they disclosed the results of her anemia test to her husband and others overheard.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this appeal, this court is once again called upon to decide whether the affidavit requirement in OCGA § 9-11-9.1 applies to the allegations made by the plaintiff in her complaint. Because we conclude that the complaint did not allege professional negligence, OCGA § 9-11-9.1 does not apply, and the trial court therefore erred in dismissing the complaint. Dr. David L. Shumans is a family practitioner. In her complaint against him and his professional corporation, Ola B. Howell alleged that she was his patient. Howell alleged that one of Shumans’s employees, Felecia McEachin, telephoned her husband, Bobby McEachin, a supervisor at a local mill, and disclosed to her husband that Howell’s test results indicated severe anemia and that Howell should get in touch with Dr. Shumans immediately. Howell also alleged that this information was heard by two other individuals. In her complaint, Howell characterized the disclosure as a breach of the defendants’ duty to maintain confidentiality of her health information. To her complaint, Howell attached a letter from Dr. Shumans, in which he admitted the “error” and apologized.

It is well established that OCGA § 9-11-9.1 applies only to those situations in which a plaintiff files “any action for damages alleging professional malpractice.” OCGA § 9-11-9.1 a. The Georgia Supreme Court has held that the legislature intended to limit the application of §9-11-9.1 to actions for professional negligence. Labovitz v. Hopkinson, 271 Ga. 330, 336 3 519 SE2d 672 1999. When a claim is based upon an allegation of a professional’s intentional act that results in injury to one with whom the professional had a professional relationship, an affidavit is not required. Id. at 336-337. In Labovitz , therefore, the plaintiff was not required to provide an expert affidavit in support of her claims for fraud and misrepresentation. Id. at 337.

Howell v. Shumans

No professional affidavit was required to support the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants invaded her privacy and breached their duty to maintain the confidentiality of her health information when they disclosed the results of her anemia test to her husband and others overheard.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report