Cogland v. Hospital Authority of City of Bainbridge

How courts have described this case

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

• applying abuse of discretion standard of review to ruling on motion to strike as untimely a brief filed in opposition to a motion to dismiss
• “ ‘[T]here is no such thing as a default judgment on the pleadings.’ ” (citation omitted)
• trial court did not err in dismissing medical malpractice complaint when plaintiffs expert affidavit “contained] nothing concerning [the doctor’s] recent or continuing experience” in the specialty concerning which he was testifying
• trial court did not err in dismissing medical malpractice complaint when plaintiffs expert affidavit “contain[ed] nothing concerning [the doctor’s] recent or continuing experience” in the relevant specialty
• because the response was “patently untimely” and without leave of court to be late-filed, trial court did not abuse its discretion when striking the response to motion to dismiss
• although physician had been licensed to practice medicine since 1974, his affidavit contained no information concerning his recent or continuing experience as an orthopedist and was therefore insufficient under OCGA §§ 24-9-67.1 and 9-11-9.1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).