- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2024
- Case
- Mohar v. Leguizamo
- Citation
- 373 Ga. App. 230
- Decided
- October 22, 2024
The statute of limitation for medical malpractice in Georgia begins to run when the injury first manifests, and the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to delay the commencement of the limitation period.
Summary
On October 22, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a Gwinnett State Court order granting summary judgment to Dr. Jorge P. Leguizamo and Georgia Cancer Specialists I, P.C. in Mohar v. Leguizamo. The trial court ruled that John Mohar’s medical malpractice action, which alleged negligence in the long-term management of steroid prescriptions, was filed after the two-year statute of limitation had expired. The appellate court affirmed, confirming that Georgia law does not recognize the continuous treatment doctrine to toll the statute of limitation.
Issues Decided
The Commencement of the Statute of Limitation in Negligent Misdiagnosis Cases
Decision
The court decided that the two-year statute of limitation began to run on February 8, 2018, when the plaintiff first manifested symptoms attributable to chronic steroid use, making his September 2022 filing untimely.
Facts
John Mohar began taking steroids in 2016 following brain surgery. He began treatment with Dr. Leguizamo in March 2017. In February 2018, Mohar presented with abdominal stretch marks and weight gain, which a nurse practitioner at the practice attributed to steroid use; Dr. Leguizamo signed off on this assessment. Mohar’s own expert later concurred these symptoms were attributable to chronic steroid use. Over the following years, Mohar developed more severe complications, including epidural lipomatosis, hypertension, and avascular necrosis. He filed suit on September 26, 2022.
Reasoning
Under OCGA § 9-3-71 (a), a medical malpractice action must be brought within two years of the date an injury occurs. In cases of negligent misdiagnosis, the injury occurs when the patient first manifests symptoms of the condition that the defendant failed to properly diagnose or treat. The court reasoned that because Mohar’s symptoms (stretch marks and weight gain) were apparent and attributed to steroids by February 2018, the cause of action accrued then. The fact that Mohar did not know the medical cause of his suffering or that his symptoms later worsened into more serious conditions did not delay the start of the limitation period.
The Applicability of the Continuous Treatment Doctrine
Decision
The court held that the continuous treatment doctrine is not recognized in Georgia and cannot be used to delay the commencement of the statute of limitation until the end of a physician-patient relationship.
Facts
Mohar argued that the statute of limitation should not have begun to run until his treatment with Dr. Leguizamo terminated on September 24, 2020. He also argued that the “weekend rule” (OCGA § 1-3-1 (d) (3)) should apply to his September 26, 2022, filing based on that September 2020 termination date.
Reasoning
The court noted that while some older cases had applied the continuous treatment doctrine, the Supreme Court of Georgia explicitly overruled those decisions and rejected the doctrine. The court emphasized that prescribing periods of limitation is a legislative function, and the judiciary is not empowered to engraft a “termination of treatment” provision onto the plain language of OCGA § 9-3-71 (a). Because the doctrine does not apply, the weekend rule was irrelevant to the 2022 filing, as the limitation period had already expired in February 2020.
Commentary
For plaintiff lawyers evaluating steroid-related malpractice claims in Georgia, this decision underscores a critical accrual trap: the statute of limitation begins running the moment a patient manifests any symptom attributable to the alleged negligence, not when the patient discovers the medical cause or when treatment ends. In Mohar, the court held that stretch marks and weight gain in February 2018—symptoms the defendant’s own staff attributed to steroids—triggered accrual, even though Mohar did not learn of serious complications like epidural lipomatosis until years later. This means that in cases involving gradual or progressive injury from chronic medication management, early symptom documentation by the defendant’s own providers can become a liability timeline marker rather than a shield. Plaintiffs must therefore identify and preserve evidence of the earliest manifestation date, including contemporaneous medical records that link symptoms to the alleged negligent condition, because the court will not extend the limitation period based on later discovery of the true medical cause or worsening of the initial symptoms.
