Before a medical malpractice lawsuit is filed in Georgia, a critical decision must be made: does the potential claim warrant the investment of time, resources, and professional capital that litigation requires? This pre-suit evaluation, sometimes called case screening, is a practical risk-analysis process that examines whether the elements of a viable malpractice claim are likely to be established with sufficient evidence. There is no single governing statute that mandates a specific screening methodology, but the realities of Georgia malpractice law, including the expert affidavit requirement that must be satisfied at the filing stage (addressed separately), create strong practical incentives for rigorous pre-suit evaluation. Filing procedure mechanics and the settlement process are distinct subjects addressed elsewhere.
The Case Screening Process
The screening process is designed to identify, as early as possible, whether a potential claim has the factual and legal foundation necessary to survive the demands of litigation. Medical malpractice claims are among the most resource-intensive categories of civil litigation. They require expert consultation, extensive medical record review, and sustained investment over a timeline that often extends for years. A claim that is filed without adequate pre-suit evaluation risks not only dismissal but also wasted resources for both the attorney and the client.
The screening evaluation begins with a review of the medical records. The attorney or the consulting expert examines the patient’s medical history, the treatment at issue, and the documented outcomes. The purpose of this review is to identify potential departures from the standard of care and to assess whether those departures appear to be causally connected to the patient’s injury. A case in which the records reflect a clear deviation from accepted practice and a direct temporal and causal link to a documented injury presents a different screening profile than a case in which the connection between the provider’s conduct and the outcome is ambiguous or speculative.
The screening process also evaluates the strength of the causation element independently from the standard-of-care element. A provider may have committed a clear error, but if the patient’s injury would have occurred regardless of that error, the claim faces a fundamental causation deficiency. Conversely, a patient may have suffered a devastating outcome, but if the provider’s care was within the range of acceptable practice, the claim lacks a breach element. The screening stage attempts to assess both elements with enough rigor to make an informed go/no-go decision.
Cost-Benefit Assessment
The economic realities of medical malpractice litigation impose a practical filter on which claims proceed to filing. Expert consultation fees, medical record acquisition and review costs, deposition expenses, and the attorney’s time investment during the pre-suit phase all represent expenditures that must be weighed against the likely recovery if the claim succeeds.
This cost-benefit assessment is not a moral judgment about the validity of the patient’s experience. A patient may have been genuinely harmed by substandard care, yet the economic profile of the claim may not support litigation. Claims involving relatively minor injuries, short recovery periods, or limited economic losses may not generate sufficient recoverable damages to justify the investment required to prosecute them through trial. This dynamic is a structural feature of the malpractice litigation system, not a reflection of whether the provider’s conduct fell below the standard of care.
The assessment also accounts for the litigation risks specific to medical malpractice. Georgia’s modified comparative negligence framework means that patient conduct contributing to the outcome will reduce the recovery or, if the patient’s share reaches 50%, eliminate it entirely. The heightened liability standard for emergency department claims adds an additional layer of difficulty for cases arising in that context. The expert affidavit requirement means that a qualified expert must be willing to commit, under oath, to at least one act of negligence before the case can even be filed. Each of these factors enters the cost-benefit calculation.
Relationship to the Affidavit Requirement
Georgia’s expert affidavit requirement, codified in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1, creates a direct connection between the pre-suit evaluation and the ability to file the claim. Because the statute requires a sworn expert affidavit identifying at least one negligent act at the time of filing (or shortly thereafter), the pre-suit evaluation must include expert consultation that is rigorous enough to support this filing-stage obligation. A case that cannot secure an expert willing to provide the required affidavit cannot proceed past the filing threshold.
This requirement transforms the pre-suit evaluation from a purely advisory process into a gatekeeping function. The attorney must not only form a professional judgment about the claim’s viability but must also obtain an independent expert’s professional commitment that the claim has merit. The interaction between these two assessments, the attorney’s case evaluation and the expert’s willingness to provide the statutory affidavit, determines whether the claim moves forward.
Consider a scenario where a potential client presents with a significant medical injury following a procedure. The attorney obtains the medical records and submits them to a consulting expert for review. The expert identifies a clear departure from the standard of care in the provider’s treatment decisions. However, the expert concludes that the causal link between the provider’s error and the patient’s ultimate injury is weak, because the patient’s underlying condition would likely have produced a similar outcome even with proper care. Based on this causation assessment, the case is declined at the screening stage, not because the provider performed well, but because the claim cannot establish that the provider’s failure caused the harm.
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.