The Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies
MAG is a founding member of the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies. The Litigation Center is an organization created by the AMA and the state medical societies to coordinate litigation within the federation of medical societies. Its purpose is to concentrate legal resources in filing lawsuits or amicus curiae briefs in cases of general interest to physicians and their patients and to share information and resources in response to emerging legal issues.
Learn more about the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies.
Amicus Briefs/Litigation filed by MAG in 2009
10.08.09 MAG defends ER provision in state's high court
The Medical Association of Georgia (MAG) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Georgia Supreme Court defending part of the 2005 tort reform legislation that requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions arising out of the provision of emergency medical care to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the physician acted with gross negligence.
In Gliemmo v. Cousineau, the plaintiff argues that under the Georgia constitution the statute is impermissible because it amounts to a "special" law. In defense of the statute, MAG argued that the statute was a constitutional exercise of legislative authority, the statute is reasonable, and legislation addressing medical litigation is effective at improving health care. MAG was joined in its brief by the American Medical Association.
Read MAG's amicus curiae brief
09.18.09 MAG advocates for preserving the traditional panel system in worker's compensation cases for their patients
Read amici brief
09.03.09 MAG files amici curiae brief in Nestlehutt case
Read amici brief
07.09.09 Georgia Supreme Court finds jury instruction in medical malpractice cases "misleading"
On June 29, 2009, in Smith, et al. v. Finch, et al., the Georgia Supreme Court found part of the "hindsight" jury instruction "inaccurate and misleading" and disapproved use of the final two sentences.
The Medical Association of Georgia filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold the jury instruction.
Read full news article
06.11.09 Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeal's opinion on 'Informed Consent'
On June 9, 2009, in the case of Blotner v. Dorieka, S08G2016 (2009), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals adoption of the common law doctrine of informed consent.
In Blotner, the Court of Appeals relied on its previous holding in Ketchup v. Howard, 247 Ga. App. 54 (2000), recognizing the common law doctrine of informed consent, and extended the obligations thereunder to chiropractors. Under the Court of Appeals' holding in Ketchup, medical professionals "must inform a patient of the material risks of a proposed treatment or procedure which are or should be known and must inform the patient of available alternatives to the proposed treatment or procedure." Dorieka, at 851.
In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court relied on its precedent in Albany Urology Clinic v. Cleveland, 272 Ga. 296 (2000) holding that, although physicians have a common law duty to truthfully answer patient questions regarding the risks associated with a treatment or procedure, Georgia does not recognize the common law doctrine of informed consent. In Georgia, informed consent is controlled by statute and regulations. Georgia's informed consent statute sets forth six categories of information that must be disclosed by physicians to patients before they undergo specified surgical or diagnostic procedures. Georgia's informed consent statute does not impose a general requirement of disclosure upon physicians. Additionally, because Georgia's informed consent statute does not include chiropractic procedures and there are no regulations requiring chiropractors to obtain informed consent, the Court of Appeals erred.
The Medical Association of Georgia filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Read Supreme Court decision
05.22.09 Court rules that MAG can join 'rental networks' lawsuit
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in Augusta has ruled that the Medical Association of Georgia (MAG) can join the case of Rivell and Whitehouse v. PHCS, Inc. and the Capella Group, Inc. - which is related to "rental networks" - as a plaintiff, according to MAG General Counsel Donald J. Palmisano Jr.
Palmisano says that "rental networks" are created when a company assembles a group of physicians who are willing to participate in a network at a discounted rate and later transfers the access to those discounted rates to a third party. He explains that the networks are often formed without the knowledge or consent of the physician. Palmisano says rental networks represent an additional administrative burden for physicians.
Click here to read more
04.14.09 MAG fights for physicians in the Georgia Supreme Court
On February 20, 2009, MAG filed an amicus curiae brief with the Georgia Supreme Court in the medical malpractice case of Condra v. Atlanta Orthopedic Group.
The issue before the Georgia Supreme Court is whether evidence that the defense expert witness' personal conduct would have been different from the defendant-physicians' conduct is admissible to impeach the defense expert's testimony that the defendant-physician's conduct complied with the standard of care.
The plaintiffs have argued, in part, that the adoption of O.C.G.A. 24-9-67.1 as part of the 2005 tort reforms overturned the long-standing rule that evidence of an expert witness' personal practices are irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant complied with the standard of care and is therefore inadmissible.
In its brief MAG argues the rule prohibiting evidence of an expert witness' personal practices is consistent with the provisions of O.C.G.A. 24-9-67.1 and the General Assembly had no intent to overturn the long-standing rule. Additionally, the rule prohibiting such evidence remains logically correct as the mere fact that two physicians would treat the same medical condition differently bears no relevance to the question of whether the standard of care was deviated from because both practices may comply with the standard of care.
Read amicus curiae brief
03.25.09 Georgia doctors join class-action lawsuit against WellPoint
The Medical Association of Georgia (MAG) announced today that it has joined the American Medical Association (AMA) and three additional state medical societies in filing a class-action lawsuit against WellPoint, Inc. - the largest health insurer in the U.S. - as part of its ongoing legal advocacy efforts to protect physicians and their patients in the state.
View complaint filed against WellPoint
Read MAG's press release on lawsuit
Health Care Report: The consumer reimbursement system is code blue
(State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, January 2009)
01.15.09 MAG members obtain an important ruling in workers' compensation case
The Superior Court of Bibb County, in overturning the Appellate Board of the State Board of Workers' Compensation decision, found that under Rule 205 an insurer or self insured must respond within five days of a physicians request for treatment. Failure to respond to this request for treatment within five days will be deemed an approval of the treatment by the insurer or self-insured. In this matter, the Appellate Board of the State Board of Workers' Compensation found that an employer/insurer could avoid Rule 205's mandates by contesting the underlying compensability of the injury well after the time frame set by the Board. The Superior Court of Bibb County held this interpretation of Rule 205 was unreasonable, illogical and unfair.