A MINOR CHILD C. H., BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIANS CHRISTOPHER JASON HOLLAND v. VIEWPOINT HEALTH ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    August 17, 2021
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A22A0045. A MINOR CHILD C. H., BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIANS
    CHRISTOPHER JASON HOLLAND et al. v. VIEWPOINT HEALTH.
    Minor child C. H., through his legal guardians, filed this tort action against
    ViewPoint Health and minor child K. D. ViewPoint moved to dismiss the claims
    asserted against it. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing
    the complaint with prejudice “as to ViewPoint Health.” C. H. then filed this direct
    appeal, but we lack jurisdiction.
    OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) generally allows direct appeals from final judgments.
    “In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer
    than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final
    judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 
    192 Ga. App. 628
    , 629 (385 SE2d
    731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Such a ruling may be appealed only if the trial
    court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an
    express direction for the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b), or the party
    seeking to appeal complies with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-
    6-34 (b). See id.
    The record before us contains no indication that the trial court directed the
    entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or that C. H.’s claims against the
    remaining defendant, K. D., have been dismissed.1 Because the claims against K. D.
    remain pending, the order dismissing the complaint as to ViewPoint is a non-final
    1
    At the hearing on ViewPoint’s motion to dismiss, the trial court stated that K.
    D. had not yet been served.
    order that did not resolve all issues in the case. See Conseco Finance Servicing Corp.
    v. Hill, 
    252 Ga. App. 774
    , 775 (1) (556 SE2d 468) (2001); Johnson, 192 Ga. App. at
    629. Therefore, C. H. was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set
    forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 
    266 Ga. 832
    , 832-833 (471 SE2d
    213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 
    261 Ga. 587
    , 588-589 (1)
    (408 SE2d 103) (1991). C. H.’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedure
    deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    08/17/2021
    I certify that the above is a true extract from
    the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    Witness my signature and the seal of said court
    hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
    , Clerk.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A22A0045

Filed Date: 8/26/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/26/2021