Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs. PC v. Gillis

Whether it was appropriate for the physician's assistant to harvest the plaintiff's vein was not a jury question, since the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners is the only entity who can make that determination under the Physician's Assistant Act.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals’ ruling on Lonnie Gillis’s battery claim against Cardio TVP Surgical Associates, P.C., Dr. I. J. Shaker, and Jay Livingston. Gillis v. Cardio TVP Surgical Associates, 239 Ga. App. 350 1 520 SE2d 767 1999. That claim arose out of coronary artery bypass surgery Gillis underwent during which Livingston, a physician’s assistant under the direct orders of Dr. Shaker, performed a procedure to remove “harvest” a vein from Gillis’s leg for use in the bypass procedure. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the battery claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that fact questions remained regarding Livingston’s authority to perform the procedure and Gillis’s consent to the surgery. Finding that the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment was correct as a matter of law, we reverse.

1. The General Assembly enacted the Physician’s Assistant Act, OCGA § 43-34-100 et seq., “to encourage the more effective utilization of the skills of physicians by enabling them to delegate health care tasks to physician’s assistants where such delegation is consistent with the patient’s health and welfare.” OCGA § 43-34-101 b. Under this Act, a physician’s assistant “PA” may be licensed to perform patients’ services for which the PA has been found qualified to perform by academic and practical training. OCGA § 43-34-102 5, 43-34-103 a. The Act establishes an application procedure to be followed to obtain approval by the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, the board charged with overseeing PAs, for the performance of specific medical tasks set forth in the proposed PA’s job description. A PA is limited to those tasks set forth in the job description except when the task “is performed under the direct supervision and in the presence of the physician utilizing the PA,” OCGA § 43-34-105, “in which case the PA may perform any work authorized for physicians that the assistant is competent to do.” Beall v. Curtis, 603 FSupp. 1563, 1573 M.D. Ga. 1985.

Cardio TVP Surgical Assocs. PC v. Gillis

Whether it was appropriate for the physician's assistant to harvest the plaintiff's vein was not a jury question, since the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners is the only entity who can make that determination under the Physician's Assistant Act.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report