Clarity in "New Injury" Misdiagnosis Cases
The Georgia Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the case of Amu v. Barnes. It is refreshing to see justice and reason prevail and it is great to have a well written opinion that provides guidance for all Georgians who have suffered injury from misdiagnosis.
The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Amu failed to diagnose his (Mr. Barnes’) condition in January of 2000. The statute of limitations would ordinarily have run in January of 2002 as to the pain, suffering, or economic loss that Mr. Barnes suffered as a result of the misdiagnosis of his condition as it had existed two years earlier. That is true even though Mr. Barnes may have had no knowledge of the actual medical condition during that time period.
This case has finally clearly delineated the “exception” to this harsh rule. The focus now is not on the date that a physician may have committed an act of medical malpractice, but on the date that the victim, Mr. Barnes in this case, suffered an “injury” as a result of that professional negligence.
The “injury” or “new injury” exception has been part of Georgia law for almost 20 years and has been applied or referred to in a myriad of cases. It is not applicable when the evidence demonstrates only that the patient’s existing condition was misdiagnosed and mistreated, and that condition was the same one that existed at the time he or she first sought treatment from the doctor. If the patient’s subsequent symptoms were symptoms of the same injury that existed at the time of the alleged misdiagnosis, then the claim is barred by the two-year limitations period.
In order for this exception to apply, not only must there be evidence that the patient developed a new injury, but he or she also must remain asymptomatic for a period of time following the misdiagnosis. A patient suffers a “new injury” if he or she has a relatively benign and treatable precursor medical condition which, as a proximate result of being misdiagnosed, is left untreated and subsequently develops into a much more serious and debilitating condition. An example would be a mole being negligently misdiagnosed as non-malignant, and later developing into metastatic cancer.
The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Amu failed to diagnose his (Mr. Barnes’) condition in January of 2000. The statute of limitations would ordinarily have run in January of 2002 as to the pain, suffering, or economic loss that Mr. Barnes suffered as a result of the misdiagnosis of his condition as it had existed two years earlier. That is true even though Mr. Barnes may have had no knowledge of the actual medical condition during that time period.
This case has finally clearly delineated the “exception” to this harsh rule. The focus now is not on the date that a physician may have committed an act of medical malpractice, but on the date that the victim, Mr. Barnes in this case, suffered an “injury” as a result of that professional negligence.
The “injury” or “new injury” exception has been part of Georgia law for almost 20 years and has been applied or referred to in a myriad of cases. It is not applicable when the evidence demonstrates only that the patient’s existing condition was misdiagnosed and mistreated, and that condition was the same one that existed at the time he or she first sought treatment from the doctor. If the patient’s subsequent symptoms were symptoms of the same injury that existed at the time of the alleged misdiagnosis, then the claim is barred by the two-year limitations period.
In order for this exception to apply, not only must there be evidence that the patient developed a new injury, but he or she also must remain asymptomatic for a period of time following the misdiagnosis. A patient suffers a “new injury” if he or she has a relatively benign and treatable precursor medical condition which, as a proximate result of being misdiagnosed, is left untreated and subsequently develops into a much more serious and debilitating condition. An example would be a mole being negligently misdiagnosed as non-malignant, and later developing into metastatic cancer.
