Bowden v. the Medical Center, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that federal cases interpreting the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were persuasive because Georgia’s Civil Practice Act discovery provisions conform very closely to the federal ones
• discussing the issue of “relevancy” as it pertains to the scope of discovery under OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (1)
• noting that a Georgia statute at issue was identical to the 1972 version of a federal statute, such that federal deci- sions and commentary from that period are “persuasive authority,” but that the federal statute had since been substantially revised while the Georgia stat- ute had not
• noting such factors as volume discounts and promises of prompt and full payment
• “[H]ow much the hospital charged other patients, insured or uninsured, for the same type of care during the same time period is relevant for discovery purposes.”
• “[T]he Cox line of cases does not directly apply here, because those were summary judgment cases, not discovery cases, and none involved a challenge to a hospital lien.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).