New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Case No. A93A2452

by: Varsha Mandiga

Case No. A93A2452 BUSA 2106

Varsha Mandiga
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Case Briefs
Legal Environment Of Business
Class Notes
BUSA, 2106, GSU, Ryan
25 ?




Popular in Legal Environment Of Business

Popular in Department

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 20 views.


Reviews for Case No. A93A2452


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga CLARK v. ARRAS et al. FACTS Case No. A93A2452. When: Decided March 15 , 1994. th       Reconsideration Denied March 31 , 1994. Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant – Clark & Clark, Fred S. Clark.     Appellees – Lane & Crowe, Donald B. Napier, Whelchel, Brown, Readdick & Bumgartner,                                  Terry L. Readdick, Richard K. Strickland.            COOPER, Judge.  What: This appeal arises out of an action brought by plaintiff against Dr. Milton Arras, the county              medical examiner, and Dr. Abram Brown, the county coroner. In her complaint, plaintiff              asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of an autopsy              performed on her stillborn fetus. The trial court granted summary judgment to both             defendants, and this appeal follows.  ISSUE(S)  Because the second miscarriage appeared unexplained, Dr. Arras performed an autopsy on  plaintiff's stillborn fetus. Plaintiff contended in her complaint that Dr. Arras, in conjunction  with Dr. Brown, performed the autopsy by mistake and without her permission, causing her  mental distress, pain and anguish.  Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants because  Dr. Arras admitted that he performed the autopsy on the wrong fetus. The record does not  support plaintiff's argument. Dr. Arras explained in his deposition that some confusion arose  because there was a four­week­old miscarried fetus in the morgue at the same time as  plaintiff's twenty­two­week­old fetus  Plaintiff failed to rebut defendants' evidence that the autopsy was not performed by mistake,  and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. RULE(S)  OCGA § 45­16­20. Georgia Death Investigation Act.  OCGA § 45­16­28. Performance of autopsy when not required under Code Section 45­16­24.  OCGA § 45­16­24. Notification of suspicious or unusual deaths; court ordered medical  examiner's inquiry; written report of inquiry.  OCGA § 45­16­22. Medical examiners' inquiries ­­ Facilities, persons authorized to perform  inquiries, payment of fees, jurisdiction, and clerical and secretarial assistance.  All four of which must be present in order for the claimant to recover:  o (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless;  o (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous;  o (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the  emotional distress;  o (4) The emotional distress must be severe." ANAYLSIS  After performing the autopsy on plaintiff's fetus, he mistakenly put the name of the four­ week­old fetus on the autopsy report. Dr. Arras further explained that the four­week­old fetus was too small to autopsy and that there was no mistake in his mind about which fetus he was  to autopsy. Plaintiff attempted to rebut this evidence with her affidavit in which she stated  that she was told the autopsy was supposed to have been performed on another fetus.  However, plaintiff did not identify the source of this hearsay statement, and the statement  referring to what she was told is not admissible evidence.  Plaintiff has failed to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress. CONCLUSION  Dr. Arras testified in his deposition that he performed the autopsy because he considered the  stillbirth to be suspicious and unexplained. We conclude that the actions of defendants do not  rise to the necessary level of outrageousness and egregiousness as a matter of law. Since  plaintiff failed to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial  court properly granted summary judgment to defendants. ­ Judgment affirmed. 2


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.