Houston Hospitals, Inc. v. Reeves et al.

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Houston Hospitals, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a negligent credentialing claim. The court held that an expert affidavit is not automatically required for every negligent credentialing claim under OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a), particularly where the alleged credentialing deficiency might have been determined administratively rather than through professional medical judgment. The court concluded that the record was insufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to establish that a listed medical professional made the credentialing decision.

Holdings

1. A negligent-credentialing claim against a hospital does not necessarily require a separate expert affidavit in every circumstance. The affidavit requirement applies when the claim is grounded in acts or omissions requiring the exercise of professional skill and judgment by agents or employees who are themselves professionals listed in OCGA § 9-11-9.1(g).
2. The allegations did not establish as a matter of law that Houston Hospitals' credentialing decision necessarily involved the medical judgment of a professional listed in OCGA § 9-11-9.1(g).
3. The trial court properly denied Houston Hospitals' motion to dismiss because the complaint did not disclose with certainty that Reeves would be unable to obtain relief under any provable set of facts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a negligent-credentialing claim against a hospital necessarily requires a separate expert affidavit under OCGA § 9-11-9.1(a), in addition to an affidavit concerning the allegedly negligent physician's conduct.
2. Whether the allegations that Houston Hospitals credentialed a physician who lacked a sufficient number of prior procedures necessarily implicated the professional judgment of a person listed in OCGA § 9-11-9.1(g).
3. Whether the trial court properly denied Houston Hospitals' motion to dismiss at the pleading stage.

Disposition

affirmed