Surgical malpractice claims based on technical execution errors occupy a focused lane within Georgia’s broader negligence framework. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-27, a surgeon who professes to practice surgery for compensation must bring to that practice a reasonable degree of care and skill. When an injury results from the absence of that care and skill during the technical performance of a procedure, the patient may have a basis for recovery. The scope of this discussion is limited to errors in how a procedure was physically carried out. Consent and disclosure obligations, wrong-site events, and pre-operative planning decisions are distinct subjects addressed elsewhere.
What Constitutes a Technical Execution Error
A technical execution error occurs during the hands-on performance of a surgical procedure. It is a deviation from accepted operative technique that a reasonably skilled surgeon in the same specialty would not have committed under comparable circumstances. This can include errors in tissue handling, instrument use, dissection technique, hemostasis, or closure methodology.
The critical distinction is between the decision to operate (or the plan for how to operate) and the physical execution of the procedure itself. A surgeon who selects an appropriate surgical approach but executes a specific step of that approach in a manner that falls below the standard of care has committed a technical error. The claim targets what happened in the operating room during the procedure, not the clinical reasoning that preceded it.
Not every intraoperative complication reflects a technical error. Surgical procedures involve manipulation of living tissue, and complications such as bleeding, adhesion formation, or tissue response can occur even when technique is flawless. Georgia law does not treat a complication as evidence of negligence in itself. The question is whether the complication resulted from a departure in technique, not whether a complication occurred.
Bad Outcome Versus Technical Fault
This distinction deserves particular emphasis because it defines the boundary between a compensable claim and a non-actionable adverse result. A patient who undergoes a procedure and experiences a poor outcome has not, by that fact alone, demonstrated that the surgeon committed a technical error. Surgery carries inherent risk, and informed patients accept certain categories of risk as part of consenting to a procedure.
The malpractice analysis asks a different question: did the surgeon execute the procedure with the degree of technical skill and care that a peer surgeon would have exercised? If the answer is yes and the patient still experienced an adverse result, the outcome falls within the accepted risk profile of the procedure. If the answer is no, and the departure in technique caused or contributed to the adverse result, the statutory threshold for malpractice may be satisfied.
Expert testimony is essential to drawing this line. A jury cannot independently evaluate whether a particular technical maneuver during surgery met the professional standard. A qualified surgical expert must review the operative record and explain whether the technique employed was consistent with accepted practice, and if it was not, how the departure caused or contributed to the patient’s injury.
The Role of Operative Notes and Intraoperative Records
Operative notes and intraoperative records form the primary evidentiary foundation in surgical technique cases. The operative note, dictated by the surgeon following the procedure, documents what was done, what was encountered, and what complications, if any, occurred. Anesthesia records track physiological parameters throughout the procedure. Nursing documentation records instrument counts, time stamps, and intraoperative events.
These records serve two functions in a malpractice analysis. First, they provide the factual basis for expert review. The surgical expert evaluates the documented technique against the accepted standard to determine whether a deviation occurred. Second, gaps or inconsistencies in the record can themselves become significant. An operative note that omits a key step, or that describes the procedure in generic terms without addressing a known complication, may raise questions about what actually occurred during surgery.
The shift from paper-based to electronic documentation has introduced additional data points. Electronic medical records may include time-stamped entries, automated alerts, and metadata that were not available in traditional charting systems. These digital artifacts can provide a more granular timeline of intraoperative events, though their interpretation requires familiarity with the specific documentation system in use.
Consider a scenario where a surgeon performs a closure and employs a suturing technique that places tension on the tissue in a manner inconsistent with accepted practice for that specific tissue type and anatomical location. The patient subsequently develops a wound-related complication that expert review attributes to the suturing methodology rather than to patient-specific factors or inherent procedural risk. The claim would allege that a competent surgeon would have applied a different technique at that step and that the departure caused the complication.
Verify current status of all statutes, rules, and judicial holdings at time of publication; legislative or judicial changes may have occurred.
Disclaimer
This content is produced exclusively for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to specific facts and circumstances.
No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this content without first seeking qualified legal advice from a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Medical malpractice law involves complex, fact-intensive analysis that varies significantly depending on the specific clinical context, the parties involved, the applicable procedural rules, and the current state of statutory and case law at the time of the claim.
The statutes, rules, judicial holdings, and legal principles referenced in this content reflect the law as understood at the time of writing. Georgia law is subject to legislative amendment, judicial reinterpretation, and regulatory change at any time. Specific provisions discussed herein, including but not limited to damage cap rulings, tort reform legislation, statutes of limitation and repose, expert qualification standards, and procedural filing requirements, may have been modified, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication. Readers must independently verify the current status of all legal authorities cited before relying on any information contained in this content.
This content does not cover every aspect of Georgia medical malpractice law. Certain topics have been intentionally excluded from the scope of this publication, and the inclusion or omission of any particular subject should not be interpreted as a statement about its legal significance or relevance to any specific case.
The examples and scenarios presented throughout this content are hypothetical illustrations designed to clarify legal concepts. They do not represent actual cases, real parties, or guaranteed legal outcomes. The outcome of any medical malpractice claim depends on the unique facts of that case and the professional judgment of the attorneys and experts involved.
Nothing in this content should be construed as an opinion regarding the merits of any potential or pending claim, as a prediction of any legal outcome, or as an endorsement of any particular litigation strategy.