Georgia Moton sued registered nurses Melanie Kinder, Rose White, and Betty Stokes, along with their employer Emory Healthcare, Inc.(“Emory”), alleging that the defendants inappropriately administered Dilantin through an intravenous (“IV”) line in Moton’s left hand instead of through a larger IV line in her neck, resulting in tissue damage and the
eventual amputation of her left hand. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground that the “only” evidence in the record shows that defendants administered Dilantin through the IV in Moton’s neck.
Moton appealed, contending that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because there is “competent circumstantial evidence” that Moton’s injury could have resulted from the administration of Dilantin through the IV in her left hand.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). An appellate court reviews the grant of summary
judgment de novo, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia stated in its October 1, 2025 decision: “evidence that nurses administered Dilantin
through the IV in Moton’s neck (and not her hand) comes only from Stokes’ testimony some four years after she treated Moton in the ICU. Even setting aside Moton’s assertion regarding the questionable reliability of Stokes’ memory of treating an ICU patient some four years prior, Emory’s 30 (b) (6) representative contradicted Stokes’ testimony, testifying that during Emory’s investigation of the incident (which necessarily occurred sometime before the representative’s deposition on December 9, 2021 ), neither nurse could independently recollect their treatment of Moton or through which IV they administered the Dilantin. The vein through which defendant nurses administered the Dilantin is the material issue in this case and its resolution depends upon the finder of fact considering the credibility of the witnesses … The witness contradiction in this case is precisely the type of conflict in the evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment … For this reason alone, we must reverse the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants.”
Experts’ Opinions
“The entirety of the trial court’s order, including its exclusion of Moton’s expert opinions, was predicated on its conclusion that Moton failed to produce any evidence that the Dilantin was administered via an IV in her hand. Because a genuine issue of fact exists on this issue, however, exclusion of the expert opinions of Drs. Smith and Liu on this basis cannot stand. Additionally, to the extent the trial court excluded the opinions on other grounds, we point out that defendants never moved to exclude the expert opinions.”
Moton v. Emory Healthcare, Inc., A25A1134.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Georgia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Georgia medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
