Brahn v. Young

The plaintiff filed suit more than two years after the defendant allegedly misdiagnosed her medical condition.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment filed by George Brahn, M.D. and his employer, Surgical Associates of Warner Robins, P.C. collectively “Brahn” in a medical malpractice action filed against them by Sylvia and Sid Young. Brahn argued in the motion that the statute of limitation had expired at the time the complaint was filed. The trial court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Brahn’s arguments and that the statute of limitation had not expired. It denied the motion on these grounds. We granted Brahn’s application for interlocutory appeal, and finding both rulings to be erroneous, we reverse. On December 24, 1996, Brahn repaired Sylvia Young’s hernia. She did not heal properly and over the next 19 months returned repeatedly to Brahn for treatment of her infected wound. Brahn last saw Young in July 1998. Young changed doctors, and during an exploratory procedure in November 1998, her new doctor discovered and removed Marlex mesh from Young’s abdomen.1 Young then saw an infectious disease specialist who treated her through the spring of 1999.

The Youngs filed this action June 22, 2000 against Brahn and his employer, alleging that in his treatment of Sylvia Young, Brahn negligently misdiagnosed the cause of her infection. The complaint alleged that following Young’s surgery, she “continued to have persistent and chronic pain, drainage and other problems with the site of the hernia procedure” and that she allegedly sought treatment from Brahn “for these painful and chronic symptoms on a regular basis up to, including and subsequent to July 24, 1998.” Attached to the complaint was the affidavit of Dr. Gary Ludi, which recited that Brahn “failed to properly diagnose the infection present in plaintiff’s abdomen due to infected mesh despite numerous examinations including exploration procedures” and that Brahn “failed to properly treat a chronic infection case by removal of the infected mesh.”

Brahn v. Young

The plaintiff filed suit more than two years after the defendant allegedly misdiagnosed her medical condition.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report