## Facts

- In August 1986, 15-year-old Henry Cole Craven had a mole biopsied at South Georgia Medical Center.
- Dr. Santos examined the tissue and diagnosed it as noncancerous.
- Craven had no related symptoms until September 1991, when another physician advised that the growth was cancerous.
- A review of the 1986 biopsy indicated malignant melanoma that had been misdiagnosed as benign.
- On September 3, 1992, Craven sued Dr. Santos and the Lowndes County Hospital Authority for medical malpractice.
- Defendants obtained summary judgment on the ground that OCGA § 9-3-71(b) barred any malpractice action filed more than five years after the negligent act.
- Craven appealed, challenging the statute’s constitutionality and arguing defendants should be estopped from asserting repose due to the misdiagnosis.

## Issues

1. Whether OCGA § 9-3-71(b)’s five-year medical malpractice statute of repose violates equal protection by barring claims not discoverable within five years of the negligent act.
2. Whether a defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting the medical malpractice statute of repose when a misdiagnosis prevents discovery of the injury until after the repose period expires.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Santos and the Hospital Authority.
- The court held OCGA § 9-3-71(b) does not violate equal protection under rational basis review.
- The court held defendants were not equitably estopped from asserting the statute of repose based on misdiagnosis.
- Because the alleged negligent act occurred in August 1986 and suit was filed in September 1992, the action was barred as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- OCGA § 9-3-71 contains both (a) a two-year limitations period running from injury and (b) a five-year statute of repose running from the negligent act or omission.
- A statute of repose sets an absolute outer limit that may bar claims regardless of when the injury is discovered.
- Under rational basis review, the legislature may constitutionally impose a repose period to further legitimate objectives such as limiting indefinite liability exposure, stabilizing malpractice insurance costs, and providing finality.
- Absent express statutory authorization, courts will not extend a medical malpractice statute of repose through tolling doctrines or equitable estoppel based on concealment or misdiagnosis, given the statute’s “in no event” language.

## Conclusion

Georgia’s five-year medical malpractice statute of repose is constitutional and operates as an absolute bar measured from the negligent act; a misdiagnosis that delays discovery does not estop defendants or otherwise extend the repose period, so Craven’s suit filed more than five years after the 1986 biopsy reading was time-barred.


Craven v. Lowndes Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 263 Ga. 657, 437 S.E.2d 308 (Ga. 1993)