2022 Georgia Code
Title 24 - Evidence
Chapter 7 - Opinions and Expert Testimony
§ 24-7-702. Expert Opinion Testimony; Medical Experts; Pretrial Hearings; Precedential Value of Federal Law

1. Except as provided in Code Section 22-1-14 and in subsection (g) of this Code section, the provisions of this Code section shall apply in all proceedings. The opinion of a witness qualified as an expert under this Code section may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses.
2. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:
   1. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
   2. The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
   3. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
   4. The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section and any other provision of law which might be construed to the contrary, in professional malpractice actions, the opinions of an expert, who is otherwise qualified as to the acceptable standard of conduct of the professional whose conduct is at issue, shall be admissible only if, at the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, such expert:
   1. Was licensed by an appropriate regulatory agency to practice his or her profession in the state in which such expert was practicing or teaching in the profession at such time; and
   2. In the case of a medical malpractice action, had actual professional knowledge and experience in the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is to be given as the result of having been regularly engaged in:
      1. The active practice of such area of specialty of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years, with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge, as determined by the judge, in performing the procedure, diagnosing the condition, or rendering the treatment which is alleged to have been performed or rendered negligently by the defendant whose conduct is at issue; or
      2. The teaching of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years as an employed member of the faculty of an educational institution accredited in the teaching of such profession, with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge, as determined by the judge, in teaching others how to perform the procedure, diagnose the condition, or render the treatment which is alleged to have been performed or rendered negligently by the defendant whose conduct is at issue; and
      3. Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph:
         1. Is a member of the same profession;
         2. Is a medical doctor testifying as to the standard of care of a defendant who is a doctor of osteopathy; or
         3. Is a doctor of osteopathy testifying as to the standard of care of a defendant who is a medical doctor; and
      4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code section, an expert who is a physician and, as a result of having, during at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, supervised, taught, or instructed nurses, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, or medical support staff, has knowledge of the standard of care of that health care provider under the circumstances at issue shall be competent to testify as to the standard of that health care provider. However, a nurse, nurse practitioner, certified registered nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, physician assistant, physical therapist, occupational therapist, or medical support staff shall not be competent to testify as to the standard of care of a physician.
4. Upon motion of a party, the court may hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether the witness qualifies as an expert and whether the expert’s testimony satisfies the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section. In all civil proceedings, a hearing and any ruling shall be completed no later than the final pretrial conference contemplated under Code Section 9-11-16.
5. In all civil proceedings, an affiant shall meet the requirements of this Code section in order to be deemed qualified to testify as an expert by means of the affidavit required under Code Section 9-11-9.1.
6. It is the intent of the legislature that, in all proceedings, the courts of the State of Georgia not be viewed as open to expert evidence that would not be admissible in other states. Therefore, in interpreting and applying this Code section, the courts of this state may draw from the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); and other cases in federal courts applying the standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in these cases.
7. This Code section shall not be strictly applied in proceedings conducted pursuant to Chapter 9 of Title 34 or in administrative proceedings conducted pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50.

History. Code 1981, § 24-7-702 , enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24; Ga. L. 2022, p. 201, § 1/HB 478.

The 2022 amendment, effective July 1, 2022, deleted “civil” preceding “proceedings” in the first sentence in subsection (a) and in the first sentence in subsection (f); in the introductory language of subsection (b), substituted “A witness who is” for “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness” and deleted “thereto” following “testify”, added paragraph (b)(1), redesignated former paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) as present paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4), respectively, and rewrote paragraph (b)(4), which read: “The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case which have been or will be admitted into evidence before the trier of fact.”; substituted “In all civil proceedings, a hearing and any ruling” for “Such hearing and ruling” at the beginning of the second sentence in subsection (d); and substituted “In all civil proceedings, an affiant” for “An affiant” at the beginning of subsection (e). See Editor’s notes for applicability.

Cross references.

Statute not applicable to valuation of condemned property, § 22-1-14 .

Competent expert testimony required in establishing payment standard or reimbursement criteria, § 51-1-52.

Testimony by expert witnesses, Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Editor’s notes.

Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provided, with respect to former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-67.1, the predecessor of O.C.G.A. §§ 24-7-702 and 24-7-703 , that: “The General Assembly finds that there presently exists a crisis affecting the provision and quality of health care services in this state. Hospitals and other health care providers in this state are having increasing difficulty in locating liability insurance and, when such hospitals and providers are able to locate such insurance, the insurance is extremely costly. The result of this crisis is the potential for a diminution of the availability of access to health care services and a resulting adverse impact on the health and well-being of the citizens of this state. The General Assembly further finds that certain civil justice and health care regulatory reforms as provided in this Act will promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of health care liability claims and will thereby assist in promoting the provision of health care liability insurance by insurance providers. The General Assembly further finds that certain needed reforms affect not only health care liability claims but also other civil actions and accordingly provides such general reforms in this Act.”

Ga. L. 2022, p. 201, § 3/HB 478, not codified by the General Assembly, makes this Code section applicable to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after July 1, 2022.

Law reviews.

For annual 11th Circuit survey of evidence law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1273 (2005).

For article, “Georgia’s New Expert Witness Rule: Daubert and More,” see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 16 (2005).

For annual survey of evidence law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (2005).

For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 381 (2005).

For annual survey of evidence law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 151 (2006).

For annual survey of product liability law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (2006).

For survey article on evidence law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 157 (2007).

For survey article on product liability law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2007).

For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (2007).

For survey article on product liability law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 303 (2008).

For survey article on tort law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 375 (2008).

For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008).

For annual survey on evidence, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 135 (2009).

For annual survey on product liability, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2009).

For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2009).

For annual survey of law on product liability, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 243 (2010).

For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010).

For article, “Symposium on Evidence Reform: The Curious Case of Differing Literary Emphases: The Contrast Between the Use of Scientific Publications at Pretrial Daubert Hearings and at Trial,” see 47 Ga. L. Rev. 837 (2013).

For annual survey on product liability, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 221 (2013).

For annual survey on torts law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 189 (2014).

For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 211 (2014).

For article, “Fisher v. Gala: O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1(e) Keeping Malpractice Claims Afloat,” see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 817 (2015).

For annual survey of tort law, see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 279 (2016).

For annual survey on product liability, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 231 (2017).

For article, “Non-Physician vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence Litigation - Who Knows the Standard of Care?,” see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 679 (2019).

For annual survey on construction law, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 57 (2019).

For annual survey on product liability: a two-year survey, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 223 (2019).

For article with annual survey on evidence, see 73 Mercer L. Rev. 111 (2021).

For note, “Faulty Forensics: Bolstering Judicial Gatekeeping in Georgia Courts,” see 54 Ga. L. Rev. 1035 (2020).

For comment, “Georgia’s Codification of Daubert: Narrowing the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence in Georgia?,” see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 481 (2006).