Georgia does not leave the definition of medical malpractice to guesswork. The state’s foundational statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-27, sets a clear threshold: any person who professes to practice surgery or administer medicine for compensation must bring to that practice “a reasonable degree of care and skill.” An injury resulting from the absence of such care and skill is a tort, and the injured party may seek recovery. That single sentence has anchored Georgia malpractice law since the original codification in 1863, and its language remains substantively unchanged in the current code.
What “Reasonable Degree of Care and Skill” Actually Means
The phrase does not demand perfection. It demands competence measured against a peer benchmark. Georgia courts have consistently interpreted the standard as requiring the level of care and skill that a reasonably competent and prudent healthcare provider, with a similar background and training, would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. This is not a subjective test asking what the specific provider believed was appropriate. It is an objective test asking what the professional community recognizes as acceptable practice.
That distinction matters enormously. A physician who makes a clinical judgment that ultimately leads to a poor result has not necessarily committed malpractice. The question is whether the judgment itself fell below what a similarly situated provider would have done, not whether the outcome was favorable. Georgia law draws a firm line between an undesirable result and a negligent act.
Bad Outcomes and Malpractice Are Not the Same Thing
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Georgia malpractice law. Medicine involves inherent uncertainty. Procedures carry known risks, treatments produce variable responses, and human biology does not guarantee uniform results. A patient who experiences a complication following a procedure performed with appropriate care and skill does not, by that fact alone, have a malpractice claim.
To illustrate with an abstract example: if a provider selects a treatment approach consistent with what peers in the same discipline would choose under comparable clinical circumstances, and the patient still experiences a recognized adverse outcome, the provider has met the statutory standard. The adverse outcome is not evidence of negligence. Conversely, if the provider departs from the approach that peers would follow and that departure causes injury, the statutory threshold for malpractice is satisfied, regardless of the provider’s subjective good intentions.
How Malpractice Fits Within Georgia’s Negligence Framework
Medical malpractice is not a separate category of law operating outside Georgia’s tort system. It is a specialized application of general negligence principles. The same foundational structure applies: a duty must exist, that duty must be breached, the breach must cause injury, and the injury must produce actual damages. What makes malpractice distinct is the nature of the duty. Rather than the ordinary care that any person owes to another, the duty in a malpractice context is the professional standard of care owed by a licensed healthcare provider to a patient.
This placement within the negligence framework carries practical consequences. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving each element. Because the professional standard of care is not something a lay jury can evaluate on its own, Georgia law requires expert testimony to establish what the standard is, whether the provider deviated from it, and whether that deviation caused the claimed injury. The expert must opine based on reasonable medical probability or reasonable medical certainty, not on speculation or bare possibility. Specific requirements for expert qualifications and pre-suit affidavits are addressed separately in the procedural rules governing these claims.
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.