Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. BOWDEN.
In Divisions 2 and 3 (b) of our opinion in The Med. Center, Inc. v. Bowden, 348 Ga. App. 165, 820 S.E.2d 289 (2018) (physical precedent only), this Court affirmed the trial court's grant of Danielle Bowden's petition for class certification and we also affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to The Medical Center on Bowden's claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In Bowden v. The Med. Center, Inc., 309 Ga. 188, 845 S.E.2d 555 (2020), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed these holdings. Accordingly, we first vacate Division 2 of our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court with respect to that division as our own. Secondly, insofar as we affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to The Medical Center on Bowden's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, we vacate Division 3 (b) of our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court with respect to that division as our own.
In Division 3 (a) of our earlier opinion, we determined that The Medical Center was entitled to summary judgment on Bowden's claim for violations of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Because the Supreme Court affirmed this decision, Bowden, supra, 309 Ga. at 202 (II) (3), 845 S.E.2d 555, it becomes binding on the trial court upon the return of the remittitur.1
Therefore, in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, we reverse the trial court's grant of Bowden's petition for class certification and the trial court's denial of summary judgment to The Medical Center on Bowden's claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Supreme Court did not address any other portion of our earlier opinion. Because none of these unaddressed portions of our earlier opinion are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, those portions also become binding upon the return of the remittitur. Callaway v. Garner, 333 Ga. App. 747, 747 n.1, 776 S.E.2d 829 (2015); Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001).
Miller, Presiding Judge.
Brown and Pipkin, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A18A1249
Decided: June 03, 2021
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)