(a) Except as provided in this Code section, the disabilities and exceptions prescribed in Article 5 of this chapter in limiting actions on contracts shall be allowed and held applicable to actions, whether in tort or contract, for medical malpractice.
§ 9-3-73.Certain disabilities and exceptions applicable
Chapter 3. Limitations of Actions · Article 4. Limitations for Malpractice Actions · Last amended 2015 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceLegally incompetent persons and minors five or older get no extended tolling beyond the article's regular malpractice periods, minors under five get two years from their fifth birthday to sue, and fixed repose caps bar incompetent persons' claims after five years and minors' claims after their tenth birthday or five years from the act.
Full Text of § 9-3-73
(b) Notwithstanding Article 5 of this chapter, all persons who are legally incompetent because of intellectual disability or mental illness and all minors who have attained the age of five years shall be subject to the periods of limitation for actions for medical malpractice provided in this article. A minor who has not attained the age of five years shall have two years from the date of such minor’s fifth birthday within which to bring a medical malpractice action if the cause of action arose before such minor attained the age of five years.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section, in no event may an action for medical malpractice be brought by or on behalf of:
(1) A person who is legally incompetent because of intellectual disability or mental illness more than five years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred; or
(2) A minor:
(A) After the tenth birthday of the minor if such minor was under the age of five years on the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred; or
(B) After five years from the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred if such minor was age five or older on the date of such act or omission.
(d) Subsection (b) of this Code section is intended to create a statute of limitations and subsection (c) of this Code section is intended to create a statute of repose.
(e) The limitations of subsections (b) and (c) of this Code section shall not apply where a foreign object has been left in a patient’s body. Such cases shall be governed by Code Section 9-3-72.
(f) The findings of the General Assembly under this Code section include, without limitation, that a reasonable relationship exists between the provisions, goals, and classifications of this Code section and the rational, legitimate state objectives of providing quality health care, assuring the availability of physicians, preventing the curtailment of medical services, stabilizing insurance and medical costs, preventing stale medical malpractice claims, and providing for the public safety, health, and welfare as a whole.
(g) No action which, prior to July 1, 1987, has been barred by provisions relating to limitations of actions shall be revived by this article, as amended. No action which would be barred before July 1, 1987, by the provisions of this article, as amended, but which would not be so barred by the provisions of this article and Article 5 of this chapter in force immediately prior to July 1, 1987, shall be barred until July 1, 1989.
Plain-English Summary
Georgia's contract-limitations statutes normally toll the clock for minors and legally incompetent plaintiffs, giving them extra time after the disability ends. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-73 departs from that general approach for medical malpractice claims, replacing broad tolling with a set of fixed, age-specific rules.
Subsection (b) states the baseline: legally incompetent persons — because of intellectual disability or mental illness — and minors who have already turned five are held to the article's regular periods, without the extended tolling Article 5 would otherwise provide. The one exception is for young children: a minor who has not yet turned five when the malpractice occurred gets two years from that child's fifth birthday to bring the claim.
Subsection (c) then layers absolute repose caps on top, regardless of disability. A legally incompetent person can never sue more than five years after the negligent or wrongful act or omission. A minor who was under five when the act occurred is barred after that child's tenth birthday. A minor who was five or older at the time is barred five years after the act. Subsection (d) confirms subsection (b) is a statute of limitations and subsection (c) is a statute of repose. Subsection (e) carves foreign-object cases out of this framework entirely, sending them to O.C.G.A. § 9-3-72 instead, and subsection (g) preserves a savings clause: claims already barred before July 1, 1987 stay barred, while claims that survived under the pre-1987 rules but would be newly barred under this article got until July 1, 1989 to be filed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do minors and legally incompetent plaintiffs get the same extended tolling in a malpractice case that they get in an ordinary contract case?
No. Subsection (b) states that, notwithstanding Article 5, legally incompetent persons and minors who have attained age five are subject to this article's regular malpractice periods rather than the broader disability tolling that would otherwise apply.
What if the malpractice happened when the child was younger than five?
Subsection (b) gives that child two years from the child's fifth birthday to bring the malpractice action, if the cause of action arose before the child turned five.
Is there an absolute cutoff for a legally incompetent person's malpractice claim, no matter their condition?
Yes. Subsection (c)(1) bars any such claim more than five years after the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred.
What is the absolute cutoff for a minor's malpractice claim?
Subsection (c)(2) bars the claim after the minor's tenth birthday if the minor was under five at the time of the act, or five years after the act if the minor was five or older at the time.
Do these disability rules apply to a foreign-object case?
No. Subsection (e) states that the limitations in subsections (b) and (c) do not apply where a foreign object was left in the patient's body; those cases are governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-72 instead.
Amendment History
Code 1933, § 3-1104, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1363, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 887, § 2; Ga. L. 2015, p. 385, § 4-15/HB 252.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: georgia medical malpractice minor statute of limitationslegally incompetent plaintiff malpractice deadline georgiachild malpractice claim tenth birthday georgiaocga 9-3-73 explainedstatute of repose minors medical malpractice georgia