How do Georgia malpractice attorneys evaluate chronic care mismanagement claims?

Last updated: November 7, 2026. Georgia law changes; check the date before relying on any deadline or rule below.

In a chronic care evaluation the deadline comes first, because long-term care produces old events, and Georgia bars claims more than two years after the injury and, in any case, five years after the act (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71). Only then does the attorney ask which specific failure a qualified expert can identify and whether it, rather than the disease, caused the harm.

Step 1: The deadline sort

The attorney lists each possible failure by date. Ongoing treatment with the same provider does not extend the deadline in Georgia (Kaminer v. Canas, 2007), so a failure from several years ago may be out of reach even if the harm is still developing. The usable claim may be a later failure, such as the most recent missed adjustment or test.

Step 2: Records across years

• Visit notes and problem lists. What the provider knew at each visit.
• Lab results over time. Trends that called for a change in treatment.
• Medication histories and pharmacy records. What was prescribed and filled.
• Referral records. Whether specialist care was ordered and followed up.
• Messages and portal communications. What the patient reported between visits.

Providers must produce records within 30 days of a proper request (§ 31-33-2). In a long case, requests may go to several offices.

Step 3: The expert question

A qualified expert, matching the defendant’s profession and area of practice (§ 24-7-702), must identify at least one negligent act for the affidavit filed with the complaint (§ 9-11-9.1). In chronic care, that means pointing to a specific decision: a result not acted on, a dose not adjusted, a referral not made. General dissatisfaction with how a condition progressed is not enough.

Step 4: Causation and damages

The attorney asks whether the expert can say the failure more likely than not caused a concrete harm, such as kidney failure, an amputation, or a stroke (Zwiren v. Thompson, 2003). A worse outcome that the disease would have produced anyway does not support a claim. The size of the harm then decides whether the case can carry the cost of expert review.

Reasons evaluations end

• The usable failure falls outside the two-year or five-year limit.
• The expert finds the management reasonable for this patient.
• The disease would have progressed the same way.
• The patient’s own conduct accounts for a large share of the outcome (§ 51-12-33).

Bring a dated provider list

Bring a dated list of your providers and any test results you have. The attorney’s first decision will be which events are still within the deadline.

---

This article explains Georgia law in general terms. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines in malpractice cases are short and fact-specific, so talk to a Georgia lawyer about your own situation.

---