GTLA Amicus Curiae Committee

GTLA's Amicus Curiae Committee exists to submit briefs in favor of or against positions taken in the courts consistent with the interests of this organization. Some recent amicus curiae briefs are listed below.

The Process

The Amicus Curiae Committee determines whether to submit a brief by a majority vote of its members. This process typically begins when a lawyer requests the assistance of the committee by submitting answers to a six-part questionnaire to the chair of the committee. A link to the questionnaire appears below. A copy of any adverse ruling should also be delivered to the committee chair. Other materials may also be sent to assist us in evaluating the request.

Persons requesting assistance should keep in mind that the committee members review only the responses to this questionnaire. They will not get copies of additional materials. Therefore, the answers to the questionnaire should not ask committee members to see other documents.

Upon receipt of a request for intervention, the committee chair will deliver it to the members of the committee for their review and set a deadline for voting. After the votes have been cast, the chair will advise the requesting member of the outcome. In case of a vote for amicus assistance, a GTLA member will be assigned to write an amicus brief and this writer will then coordinate efforts with the member who requested intervention.

How to Request GTLA's Help

You may submit a request for help online by clicking this link: Submit request online. Otherwise, follow the instructions on our questionnaire.

Briefs filed by GTLA as Amicus Curiae

Defective Products

McCombs v. Synthes, Inc. - Whether the learned intermediary doctrine should serve to bar a failure to warn claim against the manufacturer of a medical device, where the manufacturer chose not to provide specific information concerning the risk of the device to physicians who ultimately must make a determination as to its use with patients. Brief filed by Hutton R. Brown and Geoff Pope.

Campbell v. Nissan Motor Co. - Whether a plaintiff should be barred from a product liablity suit under the spoliation doctrine for disposing of a wrecked motor vehicle and its tires as a matter of law, or whether the trial court has discretion to fashion less drastic remedies? Brief filed by Albert Pearson, III, with Cale Conley, Antoinette Johson, and Brent Kaplan.

Ontario Sewing v. Smith - What rules apply to post-sale obligations of a manufacturer in Georgia. Brief filed by R. Hutton Brown.

Duren v. Pacaar, Inc. - Whether a regulatory decision to require safety equipment on vehicles manufactured on and after a certain date in the future will preempt product liability suits based on the manufacturer's failure to install such equipment before that date. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Cooper Tire v. Crosby - Whether a manufacturer's experience with product failures is admissible. Brief and supplemental brief filed by James E. Butler, Jr., Joel O. Wooten, Jr., George W. Fryhofer III, Terrance C. Sullivan, and Cale H. Conley.

Ogletree v. Navistar VI - Whether the balancing test in product liability cases (Banks v. ICI) is to be performed by the Court or by the Jury. Brief filed by R. Hutton Brown.

Ogletree v. Navistar - Whether the "open and obvious danger" rule should be abolished. Brief filed by R. Hutton Brown.

Watkins v. Ford Motor Co. - Supporting a request that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certify questions of the applicability of the statute of repose in product liability cases to the Georgia Supreme Court. Brief filed by Albert Pearson, III

Professional Negligence

Critser v. McFadden - Whether it is proper to instruct that the jury should determine the issue of negligence before determining the issue of proximate cause. Brief filed by Mark L. Stuckey.

Zwiren v. Thompson - Whether causation in a medical malpractice case may be established by reasonable probability rather than medical certainty. Brief filed by Antoinette D. Johnson.

Beach v. Lipham - Whether the suggested jury pattern instruction that "the law presumes" that medical services are rendered with due care should be abolished? Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Associates PC - Whether a defense expert in a medical malpractice case may be cross-examined by proving that the expert would not have done what the defendant did. Brief and brief supporting motion for reconsideration filed by Kenneth S. Canfield, Geoffrey E. Pope, J. Vincent Cook, Phillip C. Henry, Charles A. Mathis, Jr., and Joel O. Wooten, Jr.

Georgia Dermatology Clinic v. Nesmith - Whether the automatic 45-day extension for filing professional negligence affidavits under 9-11-9.1(b) is defeated by later proof that the client first met the lawyer some 20 months before the statute of limitation would expire and that the lawyer sent out requests for medical records soon thereafter? Brief filed by Brent Kaplan.

Williams v. Young - Whether the statute of limitation should run from the time of a negligent misdiagnosis, despite continuing treatment and later worsening of the condition. Certiorari Brief, Supplemental Brief, Brief on remand in the Court of Appeals, Brief in Support of Second Petition for Certiorari, and Brief on the merits after the second grant of the Petition for Certiorari, filed by Antoinette D. Johnson.

Chambers v. Gwinnett Community Hosp. - Whether a defense expert in a medical malpractice case should be cross-examined on bias by virtue of having the same insurer that is defending the case. Brief filed by Mark Stuckey.

McCall v. Parker - Whether "peer review" shields a hospital's files and processes for granting staff privileges to a doctor against a claim that the hospital negligently credentialed the doctor. Brief filed by Mark Stuckey.

Phillips v. Cotten, Whether med mal experts under 2005 Senate Bill 3, 24-9-67.1, have to be in the same specialty as the defendant i.e. ER v. ER; ortho v. ortho, etc. Brief filed by Cal Callier.

Taylor Memorial v. Beck: Construction of OCGA 9-10-31.1 transfer of venue provision with outline of other states handling of similar statutes. Brief prepared by Charles Cork, III.

Abramson v. Williams: Whether an orthopedist is qualified under OCGA Section 24-9-67.1 to testify against a neurosurgeon in a case involving the neurosurgeon's failure to diagnose a hip fracture (later diagnosed by a chiropractor). Amicus brief prepared by J. Marcus Howard.

HIPAA authorization cases: These cases involve the application of OCGA 9-11-9.2 in medical malpractice actions. Allen v. Wright, Sanders and Queen Amicus briefs prepared and filed by Charles Adams and Mathew Nasrallah.

Georgia Tort Claims Act/Governmental Liability

Johnson v. Georgia Department of Human Resources - May the State avoid its responsibilities under the GTCA to minor wards of the State by privatizing its custodial services? Brief filed by David A. Webster and Craig T. Jones.

City of Winder v. McDougald - Under what circumstances is a police officer liable for injury to the driver of a car he is pursuing in a high speed chase. Brief filed by Craig T. Jones.

Lennen v. Dept. of Transp. - Whether a 9-11-9.1 affidavit, supporting an action alleging professional engineering negligence under the Tort Claims Act, must allege a date on which the construction occurred in order to be valid. Brief filed by David Wm. Boone.

Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources - Whether the provisions of the Georgia Tort Claims Act should be strictly construed, and whether an ante litem notice regarding dying plaintiff is sufficient for the spouse's later wrongful death claim under the Act. Brief filed by Michael A. Sullivan.

Dean v. Dept. of Transportation - Whether venue can be obtained against a governmental tortfeasor based on the constitutional provision for venue over joint tortfeasors. Brief and Supplemental Brief filed by Mark L. Stuckey.

Brantley v. Dept. of Human Resources - Whether a foster parent's leaving a two-year old child unsupervised in a pool is a "discretionary function" under the Georgia Tort Claims Act. Brief filed by Craig T. Jones.

Edwards v. Dept. of Children and Youth Services - Whether the Court of Appeals has misconstrued the statutory meaning of "discretionary function" in the tort claims act. Brief filed by Charles A. Mathis and Glenn E. Kushel.

Hilson v. Dept. of Public Safety - Whether any claim against a State Trooper is barred by the OCGA § 50-21-24(6) of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, dealing with "failure to provide/method of providing law enforcement." Brief filed by Matthew C. Flournoy.

Prather v. Nichols - In a wrongful death case in state court against deputy sheriff driver and sheriff via respondeat superior, where County had liability insurance, is sheriff a "state actor" and must be sued under Ga Tort Claims Act. Amicus brief prepared by Craig Jones and David Webster.

Automotive Accidents and Insurance

Constantine v. MCG Health: Whether a hospital service agreement 's limitation on seeking recovery from a “Member” prevent the hospital from seeking recovery from any assets of that member, including specifically that Member's cause of action against a third-party . Brief filed by David Hagy.

Gordon v. Atlanta Casualty Co. - May an insurer limit the scope of "persons" for whose injury an insured is entitled to uninsured benefits to "covered" or "named" persons, contrary to the terms of the statute? Brief in support of petition for certiorari filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Carter v. RWT, Inc. - How long may a disabled vehicle be left on the highway before its owner is subject to liability for leaving it there? Brief filed by Mathew G. Nasrallah.

Horace Mann Insurance v. Mercer - Whether an insurer may contractually prohibit stacking of UM coverage provided by multiple policies issued by that insurer. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III and James D. Hollingsworth.

Merritt v. State Farm - What penalties exist where an insurer induces a settlement by fraudulently understating the amount of liability insurance coverage? Brief filed by Mathew G. Nasrallah.

Lee v. Doe (State Farm) - Whether a parent can recover for mental pain and suffering for witnessing the death of her child when both are injured in the same accident, and if so, whether such a claim should be paid from the policy limits applicable to the child or to the parent. Brief filed by David A. Webster.

Ross v. National Indemnity Co. - Whether the insurer of an intrastate motor carrier liable under Public Service Commission Rules up to the limits of the policy of insurance, regardless of whether the vehicle in question is specifically described in the insurance policy, or is the insurer liable only for the minimum coverage required by statute. Brief filed by Lawrence J. Pond.

Terry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. - When the defendant driver's insurer becomes insolvent after a trial and judgment for the plaintiff, must the plaintiff try the case again against his/her uninsured motorist carrier. Brief filed by David A. Webster.

Davis v. Kaiser Foundation - Whether the complete compensation rule applies to medical pay policies in effect before OCGA 33-24-56.1 that specifically require reimbursement of payments. This replaces briefs filed in the Court of Appeals and on petition for certiorari. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

White v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas - Whether an uninsured motorist insurer can avoid stacking of policies by excluding coverage for certain classes of insureds. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III and Ralph L. Taylor, III.

Dees v. State Farm - Does Georgia's U/M Statute allow a collateral source reduction provision in the insurance contract ("workers compensation" and "disability benefits") for the insured's bodily injury? Amicus brief prepared by Matthew Flournoy.

Premises Liability

Hoe v. K-Mart - In premises criminal attack cases, can the element of foreseeability be established by proof of similar crimes at other franchise locations? Brief filed by Ralph L. Taylor, III.

Sumner v. Star Enterprise, Inc. - Whether a convenience store is liable for a criminal attack on its premises where the station had been the location of numerous prior crimes. Brief filed by Robert E. Shields.

Robinson v. Kroger Co. - The standard of care of a plaintiff in a typical slip and fall case. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Misc. Torts

Fortner v. Ogeechee Railway - Whether a railroad is responsible for failure to clear vegetation at its road crossings. Brief in support of petition for certiorari filed by Thomas A. Stubbs and John M. Hyatt.

Evans Timber Co. v. Central of Georgia Railroad Co. - Whether the Georgia Code of Public Transportation preempted or superseded a railroad's common law and statutory duties to provide adequate warning devices at hazardous railroad crossings. Brief filed by John D. Steel and John B. Briggs.

Security Life Ins. Co. of America v. Clark (I) - Whether RICO applies to acts regulated by insurance statutes. Brief filed by Michael A. Sullivan.

Security Life Ins. Co. of America v. Clark (IV) - Whether RICO applies to mail and wire fraud that is accomplished by non-disclosure and concealment of material facts. Brief filed by Billy Ned Jones, Charles M. Cork, III, Charles A. Mathis, Jr., and Joel O. Wooten.

 

Misc. Issues

Bell v. Austin- Whether the medical narrative statute is constitutional? Brief filed by Charles Cork

Gordon v. Hamilton - Whether the uninsured motorist statute requires an insurer to cover the wrongful death of a relative of the insured, even if the relative is not an insured under the policy? Brief filed by Charles Cork

Popowski v. Parrott - Whether ERISA permits suits by plans for reimbursement of payments when the beneficiary receives a settlement with a tortfeasor? Brief filed by Charles Cork

State v. Herendeen: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly extended the holding in Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640 (2001) to find that the psychological patient privilege applies to records from juvenile court cases in which treatment occurred in accordance with an order from the juvenile court. Supreme Court Brief filed by David Webster.

Richards v. Georgia Department of Community Health - Whether plaintiffs are entitled to deduct their reasonable attorney's fees from parts of tort recoveries that are subject to liens under Medicaid. Brief filed by David A. Webster.

Orkin v. Carder - Should Daubert become the standard for expert testimony in Georgia?. Brief filed by David B. Bell, Charles M. Cork, III, Andrew M. Scherffius, James E. Butler, Jr., Joel Wooten, Robert E. Shields, and Leslie J. Bryan.

Pfeifer v. Georgia Department of Transportation - Whether a non-moving party may waive an argument against summary judgment by failing to raise it in the trial court. Brief and brief on motion for reconsideration filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Simpson v. Southwire Co. - Whether an employer that seeks reimbursement for workers' compensation payments from the plaintiff/employee's recovery in a tort suit should be entitled to recover a portion of the plaintiff's attorney's fees under OCGA § 34-9-11.1 even if the employer makes no recovery because the employee was not completely compensated. Brief filed by John Christopher Clark and Jarome E. Gautreaux.

Walls v. Kim - Whether the trial court should be permitted to "rehabilitate" a juror who has expressed a bias for one party. Court of Appeals Brief and Supplemental Brief in Supreme Court filed by James E. Butler, Jr, Joel O. Wooten, Jr., Richard A. Griggs and Thomas William Malone.

King v. State - Whether a party may obtain the medical records of an adversary by ex parte means. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork III and Albert M. Pearson, III.

Results Oriented, Inc. v. Crawford - Whether an arbitration agreement in the sale of a mobile home is enforceable when it requires the consumer to pay large expenses, arbitrate in the defendant's back yard, and is otherwise unfair. Brief filed by David A. Webster.

Kissun v. Humana, Inc. - Whether "parent" corporations are subject to liability under the ostensible agency and joint venture doctrines for acts of subsidiary corporations. Brief filed by Charles M. Cork, III.

Solomon v. Barrett: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly placed the burden on the non-movant plaintiff to establish his contentions as a matter of law in order to defeat summary judgment? Brief prepared by Mathew Nasrallah.