Henderson v. Gandy11/22/2004
Dr. Gandy did not verbally order the specific treatment noted after his initial consultation with the WOCNs.
Ultimately, Dr. Henderson became well enough to leave the hospital. Although his physicians recommended that he be transferred to a rehabilitation facility, Dr. Henderson elected to return to his daughter's home in Atlanta. Subsequently, complications developed, and Dr. Henderson returned to the hospital on December 1, 1995.
During this hospital stay, Mrs. Henderson requested that another physician manage her husband's care, and, after December 3, 1995, Dr. Gandy no longer participated in his care. Dr. Henderson remained in the hospital until he was discharged March 21, 1996. He then returned to his home in California where he died on April 12, 1996.
On October 24, 1997, Henderson filed suit against Dr. Gandy and Atlanta Cardiology Group, the hospital, and a home health care group for causing Dr. Henderson's injury and death from the pressure ulcer. After discovery, Henderson filed an amended complaints asserting allegations of fraud, battery, and abandonment of care based upon discovery that the medical records showing that Dr. Gandy entered orders for the treatment of the ulcer were false. Instead, according to Henderson, the WOCNs nurses developed the orders and the records were falsified to make it appear that Dr. Gandy made the diagnoses and ordered the treatment.
Then, upon discovery that the notations regarding the record entries in Dr. Henderson's case was based on a general policy of the Atlanta Cardiology Group, Henderson filed a third amended complaint on March 7, 2003, adding a claim for relief under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. On May 9, 2003, Gandy moved for partial summary judgment on this claim asserting that the FBPA did not apply in this case and that the FBPA allegation in the amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed. The other claims remain pending below.
4. Henderson contends the trial court erred by deciding, as a matter of law, that the actions she complains of did not constitute a Fair Business Practice Act Claim. The Fair Business Practices Act is intended to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from unfair or deceptive practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. The [FBPA] forbids and declares unlawful any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in trade or commerce.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Adams, Georgia Law of Torts, § 32-6, pp. 558-559 (2003). "The stated intent of the FBPA is to protect the public from acts and practices which are injurious to consumers, not to provide an additional remedy for private wrongs which do not and could not affect the consuming public generally." Zeeman v. Black, 156 Ga. App. 82, 82-83 (273 SE2d 910) (1980). Thus, the scope of the FBPA is limited to acts in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in trade or commerce. Larson v. Tandy Corp., 187 Ga. App. 893, 896 (4) (371 SE2d 663) (1988). Our code defines a "consumer transaction" as "the sale, purchase, lease, or rental of goods, services, or property, real or personal, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes," OCGA § 10-1-392 (a) (3), defines "consumer acts or practices" as "acts or practices intended to encourage consumer transactions," OCGA § 10-1-392 (a) (2.1), and defines "trade" and "commerce"
as "the advertising, distribution, sale, lease, or offering for distribution, sale, or lease of any goods, services, or any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed,
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|