## Facts

- In 1982, Betty Lyon’s spleen was removed after an automobile accident.
- In September 2004, Lyon developed overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), resulting in severe injuries, including partial amputations.
- On August 29, 2006, Lyon sued eight physicians and their practices for medical malpractice based on treatment during the preceding five years.
- Lyon alleged each physician failed to warn her of OPSI risk, failed to advise on preventive measures, and failed to prescribe appropriate medications and vaccinations to prevent infections leading to OPSI.
- Three physician defendants (Schramm, Barnes, and Sharon) had first treated Lyon more than five years before suit and moved to dismiss under Georgia’s five-year medical-malpractice statute of repose, OCGA § 9-3-71(b).

## Issues

1. Under OCGA § 9-3-71(b), does the five-year statute of repose begin at the physician’s initial treatment of the patient, barring all later negligence after five years?
2. Or does the repose period run from the date of each alleged negligent or wrongful act or omission, permitting claims based on acts or omissions within five years of filing even if treatment began earlier?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the statute of repose in OCGA § 9-3-71(b) runs from the date of the particular negligent or wrongful act or omission at issue, not from the physician’s initial treatment date.
- Claims based on alleged negligent acts or omissions occurring within five years before August 29, 2006 were not barred by the statute of repose.
- The trial court erred by dismissing the claims based on a “first treatment” trigger.

## Legal Principles

- OCGA § 9-3-71(b) bars medical-malpractice actions brought more than five years after “the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred.”
- The repose inquiry focuses on identifying when the alleged negligent act or omission causing the injury occurred, not when the physician–patient relationship began.
- Allegations of separate negligent acts or omissions during an ongoing course of care can create separate repose periods keyed to each act or omission.
- The repose analysis is distinct from the statute of limitations in OCGA § 9-3-71(a), which centers on injury/discovery concepts rather than pinpointing the negligent act date.

## Conclusion

Because the complaint alleged discrete negligent failures to warn, advise, and provide preventive treatment within the five years preceding suit, OCGA § 9-3-71(b) did not bar those claims even though the physicians first treated the patient more than five years earlier.


Schramm v. Lyon, 673 S.E.2d 241 (Ga. 2009)