Jeannot Ouellet sued psychologist Christopher Tillitski and Behavioral Medicine, L.L.C. Tillitski, for professional malpractice, false arrest, destruction of evidence, breach of contract, and emotional distress. He brought the suit on behalf of himself and his son, Jeannot “Jason” Ouellet. Tillitski answered, asserting among other defenses that he was entitled to immunity. After extensive discovery, Tillitski moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to immunity from this suit under the child abuse reporting statute, OCGA § 19-7-5. He also sought summary judgment based on the running of the statute of limitations and because Ouellet failed to sustain his burden of proof in establishing all the elements of his claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to Tillitski, finding that he had immunity under OCGA § 19-7-5, and Ouellet appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Preferred Real Estate Equities v. Housing Systems , 248 Ga. App. 745 548 SE2d 646 2001. Further, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must give the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom must be construed most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp. , 187 Ga. App. 594, 596 370 SE2d 843 1988. On motions for summary judgment, however, courts cannot resolve the facts or reconcile the issues. Fletcher v. Amax, Inc. , 160 Ga. App. 692, 695 288 SE2d 49 1981. When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc. , 229 Ga. App. 160, 163 1 493 SE2d 540 1997.
The record in this case spans 22 volumes and more than 4,500 pages, including seven depositions and many exhibits. After exhaustively reviewing the record, we must conclude that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to Tillitski, considering the Georgia Supreme Court’s thorough analysis of the child abuse reporting statute in O’Heron v. Blaney , 276 Ga. 871 583 SE2d 834 2003. Because we cannot improve upon the trial court’s analysis of the facts and the law, we will quote extensively from it.
