- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2025
- Case
- Scottman v. Emory Healthcare, Inc.
- Citation
- 375 Ga. App. 727; 917 S.E.2d 389
- Decided
- June 17, 2025
Expert affidavits used at summary judgment must comply with OCGA 9-11-56(e) by attaching or serving referenced records. The nursing expert also did not establish specific qualifications to opine that delayed detection of neonatal IV infiltration caused the injury.
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for Emory Healthcare in a medical-malpractice case involving a neonate who suffered burns from an IV infiltration.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert-nurse affidavits because they did not attach the medical records they referenced and did not establish the expert’s qualifications to opine on causation.
Issues Decided
OCGA 9-11-56(e) affidavit requirements
Decision
The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding the expert affidavits for failure to attach referenced medical records.
Facts
The plaintiffs’ son was in the NICU at Emory University Hospital Midtown and was receiving IV nutrition. One nurse documented that the IV site appeared normal at 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Another nurse observed swelling, redness, and inflammation at about 7:25 a.m., indicating IV infiltration. The injury required significant treatment, including a skin graft.
The plaintiffs’ nursing expert submitted affidavits referring generally to medical records, including records that were not attached to the affidavits and were not fully in the trial record.
Reasoning
OCGA 9-11-56(e) requires sworn or certified copies of papers referred to in an affidavit to be attached or served with the affidavit. The court found that the relaxed exception for records already on file did not apply because the complete medical record was not before the trial court and some referenced records were not in the record when the first affidavit was sworn.
Expert qualification on causation
Decision
The court held that the expert did not establish qualifications to opine on causation.
Facts
The nursing expert had NICU experience and addressed IV procedures, but her affidavits did not specify practice frequency during the relevant five-year period or detail experience with the medical consequences of IV infiltration and delayed detection.
Reasoning
The court distinguished standard-of-care expertise from causation expertise. Recognizing or maintaining an IV line is not the same as opining that delayed detection proximately caused a particular injury. The affidavits did not connect the expert’s specific experience to the mechanism and severity of the IV infiltration injury.
Commentary
The procedural lesson is direct: attach the records an expert affidavit relies on, especially at summary judgment. Relying on a records-already-in-file exception is risky when the record is incomplete or when the affidavit refers to a broader medical chart.
The causation lesson is just as important. A nursing expert’s clinical experience may support a standard-of-care opinion, but causation requires a separate foundation tied to the mechanism of injury. The affidavit needs to say why this expert is qualified to connect the delay to the injury, not just why the expert understands the nursing task.
