Time governs access to the courthouse in Georgia medical malpractice cases with unusual rigidity. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71 establishes two distinct deadlines that operate simultaneously: a two-year statute of limitations and a five-year statute of ultimate repose. Missing either deadline does not merely weaken a claim. It extinguishes it entirely, regardless of how clear the provider’s negligence or how severe the patient’s injury.
The Two-Year Statute of Limitations
Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71(a), an action for medical malpractice must be brought within two years after the date on which an injury or death arising from a negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. The statute itself specifies that subsection (a) is “intended to create a two-year statute of limitations.”
The critical question is when that two-year clock begins to run. In most cases, the answer is the date the injury occurs, which often coincides with the date of the negligent act itself. Georgia’s approach here differs meaningfully from states that apply a broad discovery rule, where the clock does not start until the patient discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury. Georgia does not follow that model as a general rule. Instead, the limitations period typically begins at the point of injury, even if the patient is unaware of the negligence at that time.
Georgia courts have, however, recognized a narrow “new injury” concept in certain diagnostic cases. Where an initial act of negligence leads to a distinct, later-arising injury separated by a symptom-free interval, courts have treated the emergence of that new injury as a separate triggering event for limitations purposes. This is not a general discovery rule. It is a fact-specific exception applied in limited circumstances, and the Georgia Supreme Court has described it as a “very extreme” and tightly bounded doctrine.
The Five-Year Statute of Ultimate Repose
Subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71 imposes an absolute outer boundary: in no event may an action for medical malpractice be brought more than five years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. The statute confirms that this provision is “intended to create a five-year statute of ultimate repose and abrogation.”
The repose period runs from the date of the negligent act, not from the date of injury. This distinction is consequential. A patient who does not experience symptoms until year four and does not connect those symptoms to a prior medical event until year six is barred from filing suit, because the five-year window has closed. The repose period is designed to provide a definitive endpoint to potential liability exposure, reflecting the legislative judgment that the passage of time creates insurmountable difficulties in evidence preservation, causation analysis, and premium assessment for medical malpractice insurers.
Georgia’s Approach Is Not a Discovery Rule
The distinction deserves emphasis because it shapes case strategy from the outset. Many states allow the statute of limitations to begin running only when the patient discovers or should have discovered the malpractice. Georgia’s framework is different. The limitations period is generally tied to the occurrence of injury, and the repose period is tied to the date of the negligent act. The “new injury” concept recognized in certain case law is not a substitute for a broad discovery rule. It applies only where a genuinely new and distinct harm arises after a symptom-free interval, and even then, the five-year repose period remains an absolute bar.
Whether your filing window remains open depends on facts specific to your situation, including when the injury occurred, when it was identified, and whether any statutory exception applies to your circumstances. These are not questions that can be resolved through general reading alone. The interaction between the two-year limitations period, the five-year repose bar, and the narrow exceptions Georgia courts have recognized requires a fact-specific evaluation by a qualified attorney who regularly handles these deadline determinations. Adams, Jordan & Herrington, P.C., medical malpractice attorneys in Macon, represent clients across Bibb County and the surrounding region in claims involving complex procedural timelines, including cases where the filing window is uncertain or contested.
The Foreign-Object Exception
O.C.G.A. § 9-3-72 creates a specific exception for cases in which a foreign object has been left in a patient’s body. In those cases, the general limitations and repose periods under § 9-3-71 do not apply. Instead, the action must be brought within one year after the negligent or wrongful act or omission is discovered. The statute defines “foreign object” to exclude chemical compounds, fixation devices, and prosthetic aids or devices, meaning the exception applies to items such as surgical instruments, sponges, or clamps unintentionally left in the body, not to devices placed intentionally for a medical purpose.
The five-year statute of repose under § 9-3-71(b) does not bar a foreign-object claim that is timely filed within the one-year period set forth in § 9-3-72. Georgia courts have confirmed that § 9-3-72 does not shorten the limitation period provided under § 9-3-71; rather, it provides an independent pathway for claims that would otherwise be time-barred.
Minors Exception
O.C.G.A. § 9-3-73 provides a limited exception for claims involving young children. If the alleged malpractice occurred before the child’s fifth birthday, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the child turns five. This means the family has until the child’s seventh birthday to file suit under the two-year limitations period. The statute of repose similarly does not begin to run before the child’s fifth birthday, effectively extending the outer deadline to the child’s tenth birthday. For children who experience malpractice after their fifth birthday, the standard two-year limitations and five-year repose periods apply without modification.
A Timeline Illustration
Consider the following date-based scenario. A negligent act occurs on March 1, 2024. Under the two-year statute of limitations, the deadline to file suit is March 1, 2026. Under the five-year statute of repose, the absolute outer deadline is March 1, 2029. If the patient does not discover the injury until February 2026, the two-year period may already be nearing expiration or may have expired depending on when the injury itself is deemed to have occurred. If the patient does not discover the injury until April 2029, the repose period has closed the courthouse door permanently, absent a qualifying exception.
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.