This is an appeal from a grant of partial summary judgment under OCGA § 51-1-29.1, the immunity statute for voluntary health care providers. The issues in this case involve whether a physician and clinic are immune from suit when the negligence is alleged to have occurred in the physician’s treatment of a patient’s complications following an earlier surgery, and whether immunity is waived when the physician has liability insurance. Because the physician and clinic were properly granted summary judgment, we affirm. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 486 SE2d 684 1997. So viewed, the relevant facts are as follows: On April 22, 2003, Janet Arvin underwent vascular surgery performed by Dr. D. Michael Rogers of the Harbin Clinic. The procedure involved a balloon angioplasty in Arvin’s kidney and placement of a stent to keep the artery open. Later that day and into the next day, complications developed. After treating Arvin for the complications, Dr. Rogers decided to transfer Arvin to the University of Alabama Medical Center for further treatment. When Arvin arrived at the Alabama Hospital, she was in cardiopulmonary arrest and subsequently suffered brain damage. A week following her arrival at the Alabama hospital, Arvin’s family discontinued life support and Arvin died.
Charles Wells, Arvin’s brother and administrator of her estate, filed a complaint against Dr. Rogers and Harbin Clinic for negligence in failing to properly and timely treat Arvin’s complications and for transporting Arvin to Alabama in an unstable condition. Dr. Rogers and the clinic moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to immunity pursuant to OCGA § 51-1-29.1 because their treatment of Arvin was voluntary and without the expectation of payment. The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment.1
