David Casey filed suit against Paul Houle, M.D., Haroon Choudri, M.D., Naren Gupta, M.D.,1 Peter Brown, M.D., MDC Health, Inc., and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, asserting he was injured while being treated at the Medical College of Georgia. The defendants appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motions to dismiss based on Casey’s failure to attach an expert affidavit to his original complaint. For reasons that follow, we reverse. Casey’s original complaint contained the following allegations that defendants assert were claims of medical malpractice requiring an expert affidavit: Prior to performing the cervical laminectomy surgery on David Casey, a document was provided for Plaintiff Casey’s signature, entitled, “INFORMED CONSENT FOR SURGICAL AND/OR DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES.” The document is signed by Plaintiff Casey and is dated October 12, 2000. Fourth Defendant Choudri and Sixth Defendant Brown surgically placed a titanium plate and screws into the person of Plaintiff Casey which were not approved of by the Food and Drug Administration. After the cervical laminectomy procedure of October 17, 2000, Plaintiff Casey was taken to a recovery room where he awoke in great pain. He was then taken to his room . . . still in great pain. Plaintiff Casey requested pain medication from Third Defendant Paul Houle while in his room. . . . Instead of providing Plaintiff Casey with needed pain medication, Third Defendant Dr. Houle negligently and unreasonably ordered Plaintiff Casey to “grab” his fingers ostensibly in order to test Casey’s grip strength. As Plaintiff Casey was responding to Third Defendant Dr.request, Third Defendant Dr. Houle negligently and unreasonably threw Plaintiff Casey’s right arm in an upwards motion claiming that Plaintiff Casey was trying to break his fingers. As a direct result of Third Defendant’s act of throwing Plaintiff Casey’s right arm into the air, Plaintiff Casey developed a life threatening hematoma on his spine and has suffered permanent disability, permanent partial paralysis, and permanent disfigurement. The hematoma on Plaintiff Casey’s spine required immediate evacuation and Plaintiff Casey was forced to undergo a second surgical procedure which would not have been required had Plaintiff Casey received reasonable and adequate post operative care. Plaintiff Casey’s injuries . . . are the direct . . . result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants. Prior to the initial procedure, MCG agents and employees failed to adequately advise Ms. Casey of the significant risks of complications from the use of titanium plate and screws which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Defendants Board of Regents, MCG Health, Inc., Dr Choudri, and Dr. Gupta failed to warn Plaintiff Casey of Third Defendant Houle’s negligent, poor, substandard, and unreasonable habits in administering post operative care. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages and asserted theories of recovery based on negligence, battery, aggravated battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Georgia RICO statute OCGA § 16-14-6. Casey filed suit six months before the statute of limitations expired and did not attach an expert affidavit to his complaint. As the statute of limitations was not about to expire, Casey did not allege that he could not file an expert affidavit with the complaint due to time constraints. See OCGA § 9-11-9.1 b.
Each of the defendants contemporaneously filed with their responsive pleading a motion to dismiss any allegations of professional negligence in Casey’s complaint on the grounds that Casey failed to file the expert affidavit required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1 a. A few days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, Casey filed an amended complaint expressly asserting claims of medical negligence and incorporating an expert affidavit filed two days before. The defendants filed amended motions to dismiss asserting that Casey could not assert medical malpractice claims in his amended complaint because he failed to file an expert affidavit with his original complaint. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and granted the parties an immediate certificate of review. We granted the defendants’ applications for interlocutory appeal and now consider their claim that the trial court erred by denying their motions to dismiss.
