Court of Appeals of Georgia Case Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C. - 550 Words

Court of Appeals of Georgia Case: Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C. (Coursework Sample) Content: NameCourseTutorUniversityCase Brief 1Citation / Parties Name of parties Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C. Deciding court Court of Appeals of Georgia Year case decided April 19, 2012 Page in casebook No.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬A12A0558 Key players Appellant: MorrisAppellee: Dentfirst P.C. Procedural history How issues got to court Without conducting a hearing, the trial court awarded the motion for a summary judgment to Dentfirst on grounds that in filing her complaint suit, Morris had been barred by the statute of limitation. Court happening The appellant filed a case at the trial court alleging that the appellee had negligently conducted treatment on her tooth that led to some fragments of the tooth remaining in his gum causing an injury.However, her claim was subjected to the statute of limitation by the court. Winner/looser Winner: Dentfirst P.C. Exact winning or loss Case Affirmed. Appellantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s plea Morris's appeal filed a strong two-pronged issue of law.The first wa s that the OCGA in section 9-3-71(a) explicitly states that apart from the provisions of the article, a medical malpractice action shall be instituted within twenty-four months after the day on which the death or injury arising from a wrongful omission or act of negligence took place. However, the appellant argued that the same statute in section 9-3-72 that provides clearly that the code of limitation in 9-7-1 shall not be applicable where a foreign object has been abandoned in the body of the patient rather it will be instituted one year after such wrongful omission or act was discovered. Facts Critical facts Morris Kamira approached Dentfirst grumbling over a tooth pain on the 9th of February, 2009. Later on the next day, he came back and had her tooth extracted by Billingsley. Afterward, she came back to Dentfirst twice both on the 11th and 23rd of February, 2009, and even went to an emergency healthcare provider on the 8th of March, 2009. On both of the occasions, she was compl aining of swelling and pain. She makes allegations, which are so far undisputed that on returning to Dentfirst on the 10th of March, 2009, Billingsley carried out an x-ray scan that revealed fragments of a tooth and removed them surgically. Issues Specific questions 1. The trial court erred in law granting the summary judgment since section 9-3-72 of the OCGA automatically compelled the court to give her audience.2. The trial court erred by giving a summary judgment since the fragments of tooth constituted an object of foreign nature as provided for in section 9-3-72 of the OCGA. Holding On April 2012, the Court of Appeal of Georgia affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Rules Legality of the rulingGolden nuggetReasoningPolicyFacts It is not in dispute that Morris had knowledge or should have had knowledge about the injury. Clearly, through the exercise of diligence and reasonable care, the reasons behind the alleged tooth wound at a date earlier than either the 9th of February, 2 009, during the commencement of the pain, or when the fragments of the tooth were found on the 10th of March, 2009. Using this reasoning, it is evident that even section 9-3-722 was violated by the appellant since she instituted the case after more than one year of such knowledge. Rationale Judgment The trial court correctly directed itself both in law and in fact by granting the appellee a summary judgment. Synthesis Regardless of the injury suffered by the appellant, the statute was upheld and therefore shielding the appellee from suits that are intrinsically statutory barred. Impression/Notes The central value that is exhibited through the case is the theme of being active rather than indolent. Victims, therefore, would lose a right if they sleep on them for too long that they are barred by a statute of limitation. Case Brief 2Citation / Parties Name of parties Roba vs. Dotson. Deciding court Court of Appeals of Georgia Year case decided April 30, 2012 Page in casebook No . A12A0399. Key players Appellants: RobaAppellees: Dotson Procedural history How issues got to court After carrying out a hearing, the Trial Court in finding out a breach of contract of selling a real property awarded the appellees an excess of damages valued at $36,367.45 which were for Dotson on Roba's counterclaim. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court. Court happening Roba does not debate that the proof was enough to support the trial court's finding that he violated the contract to buy the real property for $55,000.00 by declining to effect the sale on September 5, 2008, the closing date of the agreement. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court. Winner/looser Winner: Roba Exact winning or loss Case Reversal Appellantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s plea Roba argues that the trial court incorrectly awarded...