connotes a non-purposeful act.” (Punctuation omitted.) Id. See also Ringewald v. Crawford W. Long Mem. Hosp., 258 Ga. 302, 304 (2) (368 SE2d 490) (1988) (recognizing that a bulldog clamp left in a patient’s body constitutes a “foreign object” under OCGA § 9-3-72 because the physician had not intended to leave it in the patient’s body following the surgical procedure), overruled on other grounds, Spivey v. Whiddon, 260 Ga. 502 (397 SE2d 117) (1990). Here, the undisputed evidence showed that Dr. Goodman intentionally placed the catheter in Ms. Pogue’s body for the purpose of relieving her pain. It cannot be said that the catheter in this case is a “foreign object” inadvertently “left” in Ms. Pogue’s body. Compare Ivey v. Scoggins, 163 Ga. App. 741, 742-743 (2) (295 SE2d 164) (1982) (<HOLDING>). That Dr. Goodman may have negligently placed
holding that when the administrative procedure is not empowered to achieve the end sought in the legal action the procedure is unavailable because it cannot accomplish the purpose of the legal action holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure holding that when a doctor conducting a surgical procedure negligently and inadvertently placed and left a suture in an organ not involved in the procedure the suture was a foreign object under ocga  9372 holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis