Pediatric malpractice claims arising after the birth event involve care delivered to patients whose physiology, symptom presentation, and communication capacity differ fundamentally from adult patients. Under Georgia common law, a pediatric care provider is held to the standard of care applicable to their specialty: the degree of care and skill that a reasonably competent practitioner treating pediatric patients would exercise under the same or similar clinical circumstances. The distinguishing feature of these claims is that the patient’s age introduces clinical variables that do not exist in adult medicine, and the standard of care accounts for those variables. Birth injury claims arising from labor and delivery care are a distinct subject addressed elsewhere.
Age-Specific Clinical Risks
Pediatric patients present diagnostic and treatment challenges that are unique to their developmental stage. Neonates, infants, toddlers, school-age children, and adolescents each present different physiological baselines, different disease susceptibilities, and different responses to pharmacological intervention. A clinical presentation that would be unremarkable in an adult may signal a serious condition in a young child, and vice versa. The standard of care in pediatric practice requires the provider to account for these age-specific variables when evaluating, diagnosing, and treating the patient.
Medication dosing in pediatric patients illustrates this principle with particular clarity. Pediatric pharmacokinetics differ from adult pharmacokinetics in ways that affect drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination. Weight-based dosing calculations are standard in pediatric prescribing, and errors in these calculations can produce toxicity at doses that would be well-tolerated in an adult patient. The standard of care requires the prescribing provider to verify the patient’s weight, calculate the appropriate dose for the patient’s age and weight, and confirm that the prescribed dose falls within the accepted therapeutic range for the specific medication and the specific patient population.
Diagnostic challenges in pediatric care are compounded by the patient’s limited ability to communicate symptoms. A young child may not be able to articulate the location, quality, or duration of pain. An infant cannot report visual disturbances, dizziness, or other subjective symptoms that would inform a differential diagnosis in an adult patient. The pediatric provider is expected to compensate for these communication limitations by relying more heavily on objective clinical findings, developmental assessment, and a heightened index of suspicion for conditions that present atypically in pediatric populations. A provider who applies adult diagnostic assumptions to a pediatric patient, without accounting for the ways in which the same condition may present differently in a child, may have departed from the applicable standard of care.
Pediatric patients are also vulnerable to conditions that either do not occur in adults or occur with different frequency, severity, or clinical trajectory. Certain infections progress more rapidly in children than in adults. Dehydration can reach a critical threshold more quickly in a small child than in an adult of average size. Fracture patterns in children may involve growth plates, introducing a risk of long-term developmental consequences that does not exist when the same bone is fractured in a skeletally mature patient. The standard of care requires the provider to factor these age-specific risk profiles into clinical decision-making.
Consent Dynamics Involving Minors
The consent framework in pediatric care introduces a layer of complexity that does not exist in adult medicine. A minor patient generally cannot provide legally effective consent to medical treatment. Instead, consent is provided by a parent, legal guardian, or other person authorized under Georgia law to make medical decisions on the child’s behalf. The provider’s duty of disclosure and the patient’s right to informed decision-making are mediated through this third-party consent structure.
This dynamic creates a dual obligation for the treating provider. The provider must communicate sufficient information to the consenting adult to enable an informed decision, while simultaneously exercising independent clinical judgment about what is in the patient’s best interest. These two obligations ordinarily align, but situations can arise in which a parent’s preference conflicts with the provider’s clinical assessment of what the child’s medical condition requires.
The consent structure also affects the evidentiary framework of pediatric malpractice claims. When the question is whether adequate information was disclosed before a procedure, the relevant inquiry is what was communicated to the consenting parent or guardian, not what was communicated to the child. The consenting adult’s understanding of the risks, alternatives, and potential outcomes is the benchmark against which disclosure adequacy is measured.
Consider a scenario where a pediatric patient presents with an infection that requires follow-up evaluation to confirm resolution. The treating provider does not schedule or recommend follow-up, and the infection is not reassessed. The child’s condition worsens during the interval, progressing to a stage that would have been preventable with timely follow-up. The claim would allege that a competent pediatric provider, treating a patient of the same age with the same presenting condition, would have ensured that a follow-up evaluation was arranged and that the parent or guardian understood the importance of completing it.
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.