Court affirms dismissal of plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice case because he had no relevant experience to qualify as an expert on the nursing standard of care

Court affirms summary judgment in favor of a retail store on plaintiff's claim for premises liability after she was injured by glass from bottles that dropped onto a floor

Court affirms denial of motion to compel arbitration in a medical malpractice case where provider relied on a previously-executed arbitration agreement

Longer Limitations Period For Medical Malpractice Actions IS Available to Minors Under Five But Not To Claims Made By Minors' Parents

The trial court partially erred in granting summary judgment to medical defendants in plaintiffs' medical malpractice action because whether defendants were entitled to the benefit of the heightened evidentiary burden of the emergency medical care statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-29.5, depended on disputed issues of fact.

The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' medical malpractice action because, contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiffs' expert's affidavit was sufficient to meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. 9-11-9.1.