- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2025
- Case
- Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Turner
- Citation
- 374 Ga. App. 887
- Decided
- March 14, 2025
A complaint alleging that hospital staff overlooked a Heparin order for more than 12 hours during a COVID-19 admission did not plead facts showing gross negligence sufficient to overcome immunity under the Georgia COVID-19 Pandemic Business Safety Act.
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the denial of Kennestone Hospital’s motion to dismiss a medical-malpractice complaint. The plaintiff alleged that hospital staff failed to restart a Heparin infusion for more than 12 hours during a COVID-19 admission, leading to an amputation.
The appellate court held that the allegations did not plead gross negligence as required to overcome immunity under the Georgia COVID-19 Pandemic Business Safety Act.
Issues Decided
Gross-negligence allegations under the pandemic statute
Decision
The court held that the amended complaint failed to allege facts supporting gross negligence under OCGA 51-16-2(a).
Facts
Gregory Turner was admitted to Kennestone Hospital in November 2021 with COVID-19 and prescribed Heparin. After a bilateral lower-extremity procedure for COVID-related acute thrombosis, hospital staff allegedly failed to restart the Heparin infusion for more than 12 hours. The omission was discovered the next morning, and Turner’s right leg required amputation.
Reasoning
The court reasoned that gross negligence requires more than inattentiveness or simple negligence. The complaint did not allege facts showing that the relevant staff actually knew the order needed to be restarted and consciously ignored it, or that they ignored obvious warning signs during the 12-hour period.
The court also noted that expert affidavits addressing standard-of-care deviations did not add factual support for gross negligence.
Commentary
The decision shows how demanding gross-negligence pleading can be under COVID-era immunity statutes. A serious medication omission, even one with catastrophic consequences, may not be enough if the complaint alleges only oversight rather than facts showing a lack of even slight care.
For plaintiffs, the drafting lesson is concrete knowledge and conscious disregard. A complaint governed by the pandemic statute needs facts showing what staff knew, what signs were obvious, and why the conduct crossed from ordinary negligence into gross negligence.
That distinction matters for both pleading and appeal. The opinion does not say a medication delay during a COVID admission can never amount to gross negligence. It says this complaint did not allege the additional facts that would let a court infer more than oversight. A plaintiff trying to plead around the pandemic statute needs the who, what, and when of notice: who saw the order, who saw the risk of thrombosis, what monitoring data made the danger obvious, and when the failure became a conscious disregard rather than a missed task.
