- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2025
- Case
- Buckelew v. Womack
- Citation
- 374 Ga. App. 711; 913 S.E.2d 789
- Decided
- March 10, 2025
The trial court did not err in denying the emergency physician's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Expert testimony supported a finding that the physician grossly deviated from the standard of care by failing to communicate critical diagnostic information to the on-call neurologist.
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a verdict finding Dr. Matthew Womack and a radiologist liable for gross negligence in the emergency-department treatment of Jonathan Buckelew, who suffered a brain-stem stroke after a chiropractic neck adjustment.
The court rejected Dr. Womack’s arguments that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.
Issues Decided
Gross-negligence standard for emergency care
Decision
The court held that the trial court properly applied Georgia’s emergency medical care statute and the gross-negligence standard.
Facts
Buckelew arrived at the emergency department after seizure-like activity during a chiropractic neck adjustment. Although some vital signs were described as stable, he had an active neurologic condition and was later found to have stroke-related injury.
Reasoning
The court treated the emergency-care inquiry as objective. The patient’s actual condition, not the provider’s subjective assessment, determines whether the statutory emergency-care standard applies.
Sufficiency of gross-negligence evidence against Dr. Womack
Decision
The court held that the trial court properly denied Dr. Womack’s directed-verdict and JNOV motions.
Facts
Dr. Womack ordered a CT scan and CT angiogram and contacted the on-call neurologist. According to the neurologist’s testimony, Dr. Womack did not tell him about the chiropractic visit, a second seizure-like event, the CTA scan, or CTA findings suggesting dissection in the neck arteries. Expert testimony supported the view that failing to communicate that information was a gross departure from the standard of care.
Reasoning
Under Georgia law, gross negligence is generally for the jury when reasonable people could disagree. The expert testimony gave the jury evidence from which it could find, by clear and convincing evidence, a gross deviation from the emergency-medicine standard of care.
Causation
Decision
The court held that sufficient evidence supported causation.
Facts
An interventional and general neurology expert testified that, with timely treatment, Buckelew more likely than not would have had a better outcome. The expert identified available treatments including TPA and mechanical thrombectomy and tied the opinion to the timing and clinical picture.
Reasoning
The court found the causation testimony was stated in terms of reasonable medical probability or certainty, rather than speculation.
Jury instructions and evidentiary rulings
Decision
The court rejected challenges to the gross-negligence instructions and to impeachment of a defense expert with a prior podcast statement.
Reasoning
Viewed as a whole, the jury charge required a gross-negligence finding. The verdict form reinforced that requirement. The impeachment ruling was within the trial court’s discretion because the prior statement was contradictory and the witness had an opportunity to explain it.
Commentary
The key lesson is communication. The opinion treats the failure to pass along critical stroke and dissection information to the neurologist as evidence that could support gross negligence, not merely ordinary negligence.
For emergency-care cases under OCGA 51-1-29.5, the record needs expert testimony that does more than identify a mistake. It should explain why the omission was a gross departure from emergency-medicine standards and why timely communication probably would have changed the treatment path.
