FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , M CM I LLI A N and R EESE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for re c on s i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our c l e r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s A pr i l 12, 2018 

# In t h e C o u rt o f Ap p e a l s o f Ge o r g i a

A18A0233. EVANS e t a l. v. R OC KDALE HOSPITAL, LLC

. B A R N E S , Pre siding Judge

. Sha wn G

. Eva

n s , individua lly a nd a s the gua rdia n of his w i fe , Ja

nic e K. Eva

ns, b r ought this m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e a c tion a ga inst R oc kda le H ospita l, LLC d / b / a
R oc kda le M e dic a l C e n t e r (“ R o c kda l e ” ) a nd othe r de fe n da nts a fte r M rs. Eva

ns suffe re d

c a ta strophic injurie s from a n undia gnose d rupture d a ne ury sm
. Foll o wing a tria l, the jury re turne d a spe c ia l ve rdic t finding R oc kda le 51 pe rc e n t a t fa ult a nd M rs. Eva

ns 4 9

pe rc e nt a t fa

u lt. T he jury a wa rde d M rs. Eva ns d a m a ge s for he r pa st m e dic a l e xpe nse s, but z e ro da m a ge s for future m e dic a l e xpe nse s, pa st a nd future lost wa ge s, a nd pa st a n d
future pa in a n d suffe ring. The pla intiffs file d a m otion for a dditur or, a lte rna tive ly , for

a ne w tria l on da

m a ge s, whic h the tria l c ourt de nie d, re sulting in this a ppe a l.
For t he re a sons disc usse d be low, w e c onc lude tha t th e jury ’ s a w a rd of z e ro da m a ge s for M rs. Eva

ns’ s pa s t pa in a

nd suffe ring re nde re d the a w a rd of da m a ge s so

c le a rly ina de qua te unde r a pre ponde ra nc e o f the e vide nc e a s to shoc k the c onsc ie nc ea nd ne c e ssita te a ne w tria l unde r OC G A § 51-12-12 (b). Ac c o rdingly , we re v e rse the
tria l c ourt’ s de nia l of t

he pla i ntiffs’ m o tion. Howe ve r, be c a use this c a se involve s issue s of c o m pa ra tive ne glige nc e , the re tria l on r e m a nd c a nnot b e l im ite d to the issue of
da m a ge s a

nd inste a d m

ust e nc om

pa ss a ll issue s. Following a jury tria l, we vie w the e vide nc e in the l ig ht m ost fa vora ble to the

ve rdic t. Intl. Im ag es v. Smith , 171 Ga

. App. 1 72, 172 (318 SE2d 711) (1984). So
vie w e d, the e vide nc e showe d tha t on the night of Sa turda y , Jan u ary 14, 2012, M rs.
E vans, who wa s 6 0 y e a rs old, woke up with the worst he a d a c h e tha t she ha d ev er

e xpe rie nc e d, jum

pe d out o f b ed, a nd v om ite d on he rse l f. She the n ha d e pisode s of

vom iting a nd dia

rrhe a throughout the night. M rs. Eva ns be lie v e d tha t she wa s suffe ring
from food p oisoning a nd ha d be c om e de hy d ra te d. Howe v e r, a se v er e “ thunde rc la p”
he a da c h e , c om

m only de sc ribe d by p a tie nts a s the worst h e a d a c he in the ir life , followe d by vom iting a nd n a

use a , a re c o m

m o n s y m ptom s a ssoc i a te d with ble e ding in the bra in.
M rs. Eva n s’ s sy m ptom s did not subside ove r the ne xt two da y s, a nd a round 8:00

p.m
. on M onda

y , Ja nua ry 16, 2012, M r. Eva

ns, he r husba

nd, d rove he r to the R oc kda le

e m e rge n c y room
. A fte r a rriving the re , M rs. Eva ns c o m pla ine d of d eh ydra tion,
he a da c h e , dia

rrhe a , a nd na

use a , a nd she told the nursing sta ff tha t she m ight ha ve food

2poisoning from a l oc a l re sta ura n t

. The tria ge nurse fa ile d to doc u m e n t M rs. Eva ns’ s initia l c om

pla int of he a da c he in the m e dic a l c ha rt a n d c hose the c h a rting te m pla te o n the c om pute r for dige s tive sy ste m illne sse s, whic h re m a ine d the te m p la te use d by the nursing sta ff throughout M rs. Eva ns’ s sta y in the e m e rge nc y

room
. The tria ge nurse doc um e nte d M rs. E va ns’ s initia l blood pre s sure a s 2 13/105, a blood pre ssure within the Am e ric a n He a rt A ssoc ia tion’ s guide line s f or hy pe rte nsive

c risis. All of the blood pre ssure re a d ings subse que ntly ta ke n by the e m e rge nc y

room nursing sta ff re fle c te d tha t M rs. Eva ns ha d a c ontinue d sy stolic blood pre ssure of ove r 200, whic h is “ e xtre m e ly high” a nd a l so c a n be a sign of ble e ding i n the b r ai n. Additiona lly , M rs. Eva

ns re que s t e d m e d i c a

t ion for a se ve re throbbing h e a d a c he , whic h
she de s c ribe d a s a

n 8 out of 10 on the hospita l pa in sc a le

. De spite he r c om pla int of a

se ve re he a da ch e an d h i g h blood pre ssure , the n ursing sta ff did not a sk M rs. Eva ns foc u se d que stions a

b out he r he a da c he a nd thus did not le a rn from he r a nd doc um e nt
in the m e dic a l c ha

rt tha t he r initia l onse t of sy m ptom s ha d involve d he r wa king up with
the m ost se ve re he a da c he of he r life

. M rs. Eva ns wa s dia gnose d with high blood pre ssure , na use a , a nd v o m iting, with

no spe c ific c a

use i de ntifie d. The e m e rge nc y room phy s i ci an told M rs. Eva n s tha t he

3wa s c onc e rne d a bout he r high blood pre ssure a nd tha t she ne e de d to se e he r prim a ry

c a re phy sic ia

n tha t we e k. M rs. Eva

ns wa s d isc ha

rge d from t

he e m e rge nc y room in the

e a rly m orning hours of Ja

nua ry 17, 2012, a nd wa s instruc te d t o re turn if he r c ondition

worse ne d.
Afte r M rs. Eva

ns wa s disc ha

rge d, M r. Eva

ns c a lle d a loc a l prim a ry c a re pra c tic e

a nd m a de M rs. E va

ns a n a ppointm e n t for the following M onda y, t h e first a va ila

ble

a ppointm e nt. M rs. Eva

ns’ s se ve re he a da c he a nd vom i ting re turne d a ft er she wa s disc ha rge d, a nd she c ontinue d t o ha ve those sy m ptom s throughout t

he we e k. She fe l l

se ve ra l tim e s during the we e k a nd ha d to c ra wl ba c k to be d on a t le a st one oc c a sion.
On Ja nua ry 22, 2012, M r. Eva

ns c a lle d 911 a fte r M rs. Eva ns be ga n m oving he r m outh

unna tura lly while e a ting a

n d wa s una

ble to ge t up from

the c ouc h.
M rs. Eva ns wa s tra n sported by a m bula nc e to t he R oc k da le e m e rge nc y room ,

w h er e a C T s c a n showe d a blood c l ot in he r bra in. She wa s tra nsfe rre d t o Em ory Hospita l, a nd furthe r te sting re v e a le d tha t she ha d suffe re d s e ve ra l stroke s a s a re s ult
of a rupture d bra i n a n e ury s m
. M rs. Eva ns unde rwe nt m

ultiple surge rie s a nd spe nt

m onths in the hospita l a nd a re ha bilita tion f aci lity

. She is pe rm a ne n tly a nd tota lly

4disa

ble d, is inc ontine nt, re quire s a fe e ding t ube , c a n not spe a k, ha s se ve re c ognitive a n d
othe r im pa irm e nts, ha s a

se iz ure disorde r, a nd re quire s 24-hour c a re
. In August 2013, M r. Eva

ns, individua lly a

nd a s gua rdia n of M rs. Eva

ns, su e d
R oc kda le for m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e a nd loss of c onsortium

. 1 D uring t he tria l, the pa

rtie s d ispute d whe the r M rs. Eva ns suffe re d from a rupture d bra in a ne ury sm whe n she

pre s e nte d a t the em er g en c y room on Ja nua ry 16, 2 0 12, whe the r a dia gnosis of a rupture d a ne ury sm o n tha t da te would ha ve le d to a be tte r outc om e , a nd whe the r the
R oc kda le e m e rge nc y room nurse s viola te d the sta nda rd of c a re
. R oc kda le a lso a rgue d
tha t M rs. E v a

ns’ s fa ult e xc e e de d tha t of R oc k da le be c a use , a m ong othe r things, she
ha d not obta ine d t

re a tm e nt for he r longsta

nding , u n co n trolle d hy

pe rte nsion de spite
be ing a wa re of tha

t c ondition.
As to da m a ge s, the pla intiffs pre se n te d m e dic a l bi l l i n g re c ords re fle c ting tha t
M rs. Eva ns’ s tota l p a st m e dic a l e xpe nse s we re $1,196 , 2 8 8

. 97, a s we ll a s te stim ony

re ga rding the proc e d

u re s a nd re ha

bilita tion tha t she ha d t o unde rgo a fte r the rupture d

an eu r ys m u

p to the point of tria l. The pla intiffs a lso pre se nte d e v ide nc e of fu t u r e

1 The pla intiffs a lso sue d the phy sic ia n who sa w M rs. Eva

ns during he r initia l visit to the R oc kda le e m e rge nc y room a nd the phy sic ia

n’ s e m pl o y er , but the e m e rge n c y room p hy sic ia n a nd his em

p loy e r obta ine d de fe n s e ve rdic ts a nd a re not involve d in this a

ppe a l. 5m e dic a l e xpe nse s, pa s t a nd future lost wa ge s, a nd o f Mr s
. Eva ns’ s c urre nt im

pa ire d

c ondition re quiring 24-hour c a re
. M r. Eva n s a nd a c e rtifie d nurse ’ s a ide te stifie d to the

c a re t ha t ha d to be provide d to M rs. Eva ns, a n d the jury wa s s hown a da y -in-the -life
vide o re fle c ting the c a re provide d by M r. Eva ns a nd the nurse ’ s a ide

. R oc kda le did not c onte st tha t M rs. Eva

n s wa s c a ta strophic a lly injure d a nd did

not a ddre ss the iss u e of d a m a ge s during c losing a rgum e nt. D uring the c rosse xa m ina tion of the p la intiffs’ da m a ge s e xpe rts who opine d o n M rs. Eva ns’ s lost wa ge s

a nd future m e dic a l e xpe nse s , R oc kda le did c ha lle n ge the e xpe rts’ c re dibility a nd the

e xte nt of the da m a ge s sought for future m e dic a l e xpe nse s
. Following its d e libe ra tions, the jury r et u r n ed i ts ve rdic t on a spe c ia l ve rdic t
f o r m
. I n Se c tion 1 of t

he ve rdic t form , the jury a wa rde d M rs. Eva n s the a m ount she
ha d re que ste d in da m a ge s for pa st m e dic a l e xpe nse s ($1,196,288.97), but a wa rde d he r

z e ro da m a ge s for future m e dic a l e x pe nse s, z e ro da m a ge s for p a s t a nd future l ost

wa ge s, a nd z e ro da m a ge s for pa st a n d future pa in a nd s uffe ring. The jury a w a rde d M r.
Eva ns $67,555 in da m a g e s for loss of c onsortium

. In Se c tion 2 of the ve rdic t form , the jury a pportione d fa

ult a m ong the pa

rtie s, finding t

ha t R oc kda le wa s 51 pe rc e nt a t fa ult

a nd tha t M rs. E va

ns w a s 49 p e rc e nt a t fa

ult. The trial co u r t re duc e d the a m ount of

6da m a ge s a wa rde d by the jury in proportion to the pe rc e n ta ge s of fa ult an d en t er e d judgm e nt in fa vor of the pla intiffs a nd a g a inst R o c kda l e in the a m ount of $586,191.60 for pa st m e dic a l e xpe nse s a nd $33,101.95 for loss of c onsortium

. The pla intiffs file d a m o tion for a dditur or for a n e w tria l on the ground tha t the jury ’ s a wa rd of da m a ge s a ga i nst R oc kd al e w as s o c le a rly ina de qua te a s to be
inc o nsiste nt with the pre ponde ra nc e of the e vide nc e
. The pla intiffs c onte nde d tha t a ny

ne w tria l orde re d by the tria l c ourt should be lim ite d to the issue of da m a ge s. R oc kda le

oppose d the m otion, c onte nding tha t the jury ’ s da m a g e s a wa rd should not be disturbe d

a nd tha t a

n y r et r i al could not be lim ite d to the issue of da m a ge s be c a use the c a se involve d c o m

pa ra tive ne glige n c e
. Following a he a ring, the tria l c ou r t d en i e d the pla i ntiffs’ m otion for a dditur or a ne w tria l on da

m a ge s, re s ulting in this a

ppe a l.
At the outse t, we n ote tha t the pla intiffs’ m o tion se e k ing a n e w tria l a s a re s ult
of ina de qua te da m a ge s is gove rne d by OC GA § 51-12-12, whic h provide s in pa rt: (a ) The que stion of d a m a ge s is ordina rily o ne for the jury ; a nd the c ourt should not inte rfe re with the jury ’ s ve rdic t unle ss the da m a ge s a wa rde d by the jury a

re c le a rly so ina de q

ua te or s o e x c e ssive a s to be inc o nsiste nt with the pre ponde ra nc e of the e vide nc e in the c a se
. (b) If the j ury ’ s a wa rd of da m a ge s is c le a rly so ina de qua te or so e xc e ssive
as t o an y p a rty a s t o be inc onsiste nt with the pre ponde ra n c e of the 7e vide nc e , the tria l c ourt m a y orde r a n e w tria l a s to d a m a ge s only , a s to

a ny or a ll p a

rtie s, or m a y c ondition the gra nt of suc h a ne w tria l u pon a ny pa rty ’ s re fusa l to a c c e pt a

n a m ount de te rm ine d by

the tria l c ourt.

As the Supre m e C ourt of Ge orgia ha s e xpla ine d , the foc us of O C GA § 51-12-12, unde r whic h the a wa rd is b e i ng
re vie we d, is to a l low the tria l c ourt to i nte rfe re with a jury ve rdic t in two opposite s itua

tions – whe re the a wa rd i s so ina de qua te or s o e xc e ssive a s to be c ontra

ry to t h e pre ponde ra nc e o f the e vide nc e
. . . . M ore ove r, a n
e xc e ssive or i na de qua te ve rdic t is a m ista k e of fa c t ra t

he r tha n of la w a nd
a ddre sse s itse lf to the disc re tion of the tria l judge w ho, like t he jury , sa

w the witne s se s a

nd he a rd the te stim ony . In fa c t, the t ria l c ourt’ s a

pprova l of the ve rdic t c re a te s a pre sum ption of c orre c t

ne ss whic h is not to be disturbe d a

bse nt c om

pe lling e vide nc e
. (C ita tions, punc t

ua tion, a nd e m

p ha sis om i tte d.) Moody v
. D y k e s , 269 Ga

. 2 17, 221 (6) (496 SE2d 907) (1998). Ne ve rthe le s s, our Supre m e C o u rt h a s he ld tha t a ppe lla te c ourts

a re e m powe re d to se t a side a j ury ’ s da m a ge s a wa rd unde r OC GA § 51-12-12, se e id.,

a nd a n a w a rd tha t is so i na de qua te or e xc e ssive “ a s to shoc k t he c onsc i e nc e ” is subje c t

to re ve rsa l on a

ppe a l. (C i ta tion a nd p unc tua tion om itte d.) Lindse y v
. Turne r , 279 G a
. App. 595, 596 (1) (631 SE2d 789) (2006).
The bu r d en o n a n a

ppe lla nt se e king re ve rsa l of the tria l c ourt is not a n
im possible one
. Se e Moore v
. TC I C able v ision of Ga. , 235 Ga

. App. 796, 799 (2) (510 8SE2d 96) (1998) (tria l c ourt a b u s ed i t s disc re tion in d e ny i ng m otion for ne w t ria l,
whe re jury found de fe nda nt lia ble but a wa rde d z e ro d a m a ge s to the pla intiff, a nd the undispute d e vide nc e showe d tha t the pla intiff wa s s e riously injure d in a c a r c ollision).
Inde e d , e ve n unde r the prior sta tute a ddre ssing ina de qua te da m a ge s, whic h re quire d
tha t the a w a rd b e s o sm a l l “ a s to justify the infe re nc e o f gross m ista ke or undue bia s,”

se e Ga

. C ode 1933 § 10 5 -2015, 2 Ge orgia a ppe lla te c ourts re ve rse d tria l c ourts a n d

re m a nde d for n e w tria ls whe re the unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e re fle c t e d tha t the jury ’ s

a wa rd of da m a ge s wa s grossly ina d e qua te

. Se e , e
. g., Anglin v
. C ity of C o lumbus , 128
Ga

. 469, 472-473 (57 SE 780) (1907); C arte r v
. Re e

se , 150 Ga

. App. 494, 495-496 (2) (258 SE2d 1 65) (1979); Bre w e r v
. G ittings , 102 Ga

. App. 367, 370-371 (1) (116 SE2d 500) (1960); K

oon v
. Atlantic C

oast Line R

. C

o. , 90 Ga

. Ap p
. 8 7 7 , 878-879 (1) (84
SE2d 703) (1954); Trav e rs v
. Mac on R. & Light C o. , 1 9 Ga

. App. 15, 15-16 (90 SE2d 732) (1916). M indful of the sta tutory fra m e work a

nd pre c e de n t, we t u r n t o the pla i ntiffs spe c i fic a rgum e nts on a ppe a l.

2 Like t he pre se nt ve rsion of the sta tute , t he prior ve rsion a fforde d tria l c ourt’ s disc re tion in de te rm ining whe the r a jury ’ s da m a ge s a wa rd wa s ina de qua te

. Se e Sav annah, Florida & W

e ate rn Ry

. v
. Harpe r , 70 Ga. 1 19 , 1 2 3 (1883) (noting tha t de c ision whe the r to gra n t a ne w tria l be c a u se of e xc e ssive o r i na de qua te da m a ge s “ wa s a m a tte r in the sound disc re tion of the [tria l] c ourt” ). 91. M rs. Eva ns, through he r husba

nd a s gua rdia n, a rgue s tha t the jury ’ s a wa rd of

z e ro da m a ge s for pa st p a in a nd suffe ring re nde re d the da m a ge s on her m e dic a l

m a lpra c tic e c lai m so c le a rly ina de q ua te unde r a

pre ponde ra nc e of the e vide nc e a s to
shoc k the c onsc i e nc e a nd re q uire a ne w tria l . W e a gre e
.

“ The a sse s sm e nt of a

m one ta ry va lue for pa in a

nd suffe ring is a

m a tte r for the

e nlighte n e d c onsc ie nc e of the jury ,” Turpin v
. W orle y , 2 06 Ga

. App. 341, 343 (1) (425 SE2d 895) (1992), a

nd the jury

m a y c onside r [i] nte rfe re n c e w i t

h n o r m a l l i v i ng, inte rfe re nc e with e n joy m e nt of life , loss of c a pa c ity to la

bor a nd e a rn m one y , im

pa irm e nt o f bodily h e a lth a nd vigor, the fe a r of e xte nt o f i n j u r y , shoc k of im

pa c t, a c tua l pa in a nd suffe ring, pa st a nd future , m e nta l a nguish, pa st a nd future , [a nd the e xte nt to whic h the pla intiff] m

ust lim it a c t ivitie s.

Fo o d Lion v
. W

illiams , 2 19 Ga

. App. 352, 355 (3) (464 SE2d 913) (1995). Nota bly , howe v e r, “ [t] he l a w infe rs bodily pa in a n d s uffe ring from pe rsona l injury .” (C ita tions
and punc tua tion om itte d.) C oc hran v
. Ly nc h , 126 Ga

. App. 866, 868 (2) ( 1 9 2 S E 2 d 165) (1972). Se e R e iss v
. How ard J ohnson’s, Inc

. , 121 Ga

. App. 119, 119 (1) (173
SE2d 95) (1970). M ore ove r, onc e the jury de te rm ine s tha t the p la intiff is entitle d to

re c o ve r from a de fe nda

nt for a ne glige nt a c t, the pla intiff is “ e ntitle d to r eco v e r da m a ge s c o m

m e nsura te with t h e i n

j ury susta ine d by he r.” Slaughte r v
. Atlanta 10C

oc a-C ola Bottling C

o. , 48 Ga. App. 327, 327 (172 SE 723) (1934). Thus, Ge orgia

c ourts ha ve re ve rse d da m a ge s a wa rds whe re the jury ’ s a wa rd of da m a ge s for pa in a n d
suffe ring wa s sm a ll a nd grossly dispropor t i ona te to the u ndispute d ly se ve re injury

susta ine d by the pla intiff. Se e , e .g., Anglin , 128 Ga

. a t 4 72 (de nia l o f ne w tria l wa s

e rror be c a use “ the a m ount fixe d by

the jury wa s so sm a ll a

nd disproportiona

te to the

pa in a nd suffe ring e ndure d from the injury a s to justify the infe re nc e of gross m ista ke

or undue bia s ” ); Slaughte r , 48 Ga . App. a t 327-328 (“ The a m o unt of $1 fixe d by the jury c o uld not b e c onside re d a s suffic ie n t co m pe nsa tion for w ha te v e r p a in a n d
suffe ring the pla intiff m a y h a ve e ndure d.” ); Mc

Le ndon v
. Floy d , 5 9 Ga

. App. 5 06, 506-
507 (1939) (a wa rd of $300 in p a st m e dic a l c osts wa s ina de qua te , re quiring a ne w t ria l,
whe re it w as u ndispute d tha t the pla intiff a l so suffe re d pa in a nd suffe ring a nd othe r da m a ge s). C om

pa re Turpin , 206 Ga

. App. a t 341, 342-343 (1) (upholding j ury a wa rd
of $ 100 for pa in a

nd suffe ring, whe re p la intiff’ s prim a ry c om pla int wa s he a da c he s, a

n d pla i ntiff’ s e xpe rts c o nc e d e d tha t “ the re is no te st t ha t c a n be pe rform e d to de te c t the se he a da c h e s,” tha t the pa i n from he a da c he s i s “ total l y s ub j ec tive , ” a

n d tha t “ it is

e xtre m e ly diffic ult to e va lua te a nd prove a ‘ m a linge re r situa

t ion with he a d a c he s’ ” ).

11Furthe rm ore , we h a ve he ld th at t h e jury ’ s a wa rd of da m a ge s wa s sm a ll a n d grossly i na de qua te so a s to ne c e ssita te a ne w tria l, whe re the ju r y a wa rde d spe c ia l
da m a ge s for the se ve re ly

injure d pa

rty ’ s m e d ic a l e x pe nse s, but virtua lly no da m a ge s for the pa in a nd suffe ring u ndispute dly susta ine d b y the pla i ntiff a s a re s u l t o f the injury

. Se e C

othe rn v
. H

ay good , 147 G a. A p p
. 20 0, 200 (248 SE2d 231) (1978) (re ve rsing tria l c ourt a nd re m a nding for ne w t r i al i n c a s e w he re c hild wa s i njure d in

m otorc y c le a c c ide nt a nd suffe re d “ pe rm a ne nt im pa irm e nt,” a nd the ju r y a wa rde d

m e dic a l e xpe nse s but only $1 for the c hild’ s pa in a

n d suffe ring); Bre w e r v . Gittings , 102 Ga

. App. 367, 369-371 (1) (116 SE2d 5 00) (1960) (tria l c o urt should ha ve gra nte d

ne w tria l , whe re jury found de fe nda nt lia ble for se rious skull a nd othe r injurie s to c hild

a nd a w a rde d m e d ic a l c osts, but a wa rde d only $10 for the c hild’ s pa in a nd suffe ring).
Sim ila rly , in othe r jurisdic tions, [v] e rdic ts a wa rding m e dic a l da m a ge s without a s im ulta ne ous a w a rd for da m a ge s for pa in a nd s uffe ring ha v e b e e n o ve rturne d, w he re a prope r
c l ai m h ad be e n m a de , a nd a t le a st a s ubsta

ntia l phy sic a l i njury , the
e xiste nc e of ob

ject i ve sy m

p tom s, or indisputa

ble e vide nc e tha t the pla intiff suffe re d a t le a st som e pa in wa s shown.

1222 Am Jur2d Da m a ge s § 215 (Nove m be r 2017 upda

te ) (c iting c a se s ). 3 A s one c ourt ha s

e xpla ine d, whe re “ the e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d o r substa

ntia lly undispute d tha t a pla intiff
ha s e xpe rie nc e d a nd will e xpe rie nc e pa in a nd suffe ring a s a re sult of a n a c c i de nt, a z e ro

a wa rd for pa in a nd suffe ring is ina de qua te a s a m a tte r of la w.” (C it ation a

n d

punc tua t ion om itte d). E lle nde r v
. Bric k e r , 967 So2d 1 088, 1093 (IV) (Fla

. Dist. Ct

. App. 2007). Tha

t is the situa

tion he re
. The jury a wa rde d M rs. E va ns 100 pe rc e nt of he r pa st m e dic a l e x p e nse s, a nd the undispute d e vide nc e from M r. Eva ns, othe r witne s se s, a nd M rs. Eva n s ’ s m e dic a l

re c o rds introduc e d without obje c tion re fle c te d t hat s he u nde rwe n t m ultiple surgic a l

3 Se e , e
. g
. , Le dbe tte r v . Todd , 418 So2d 1116, 1117 (Fla

. D ist. C t. App. 1982) (onc e jury c onc l ude d tha t phy sic ia n’ s m a lpra c tic e c a

u sa lly c ontribute d to pla intiff’ s a rm injury , the jury ’ s aw ard of c om pe nsa tory da m a ge s but no da m a ge s for pa in a n d s u f f er ing c ould n ot be susta ine d be c a use the surge rie s unde rwe nt by p la intiff “ m u s t ha ve c a u se d som e a m ount of pa in a n d suffe ring [tha t the pla intiff] would not othe rwise ha ve e xpe rie nc e d” ); Griffin v
. Be thard , 398 So2d 639, 643 (La

. C t. Ap p
. 1 98 1 ) (“ A jury can not a wa rd spe c ia l da m a ge s for pe rsona l injurie s inc u rre d in a n a c c ide nt a n d re fuse to a w a rd a ny a m ount for ge ne ra l da m ag es f o r injurie s tha t pre s e nt obje c tive sy m p to m s
. ” ); W

itt v
. Martin , 672 P2d 312, 317 (V) (Okla

. C t

. App. 1983) (re ve rse d a nd re m a n de d for ne w tria l, whe re “ [t] he e ffe c t of the ve rdic t wa s to a wa rd signific a nt m e dic a l e xpe nse s a nd a wa rd nothing for a ny pa in o r othe r i njury re la te d de trim e nt” ); Hammond v
. Rimme r’s Estate , 643 SW 2d 222, 224 (Te x. App. 1982) (jury ’ s a nswe r o f “ none ” a s to t

he a m o unt of da m a ge s d

ue for future p a in a nd m e n ta l a ngu i s h w as unsupporte d by e v i de nc e , whe re jury a wa rde d m e d i cal expe n se s a nd o the r spe c ia l da m a ge s, a nd e vide n c e undispute dly showe d tha t pla intiff w a s hospita liz e d for 29 da y s a nd ha d suffe re d ne urologic a l da m a ge ). 13proc e d

ure s a nd spe nt m onths in the hospita l a nd a r eha bilita t ion fa c ility

. The undispute d te stim ony from M r. Eva ns, M rs. Eva

ns’ s c e rtifie d nurse ’ s a ide , othe r witne s se s, a nd the da

y -in-the -life v ide o shown to the jury furthe r de m ons tra te d tha t
M rs. Eva ns is pe rm a ne n tly a nd c om ple te l y d isa

ble d, c a nnot spe a k, i s inc ontine nt,

re quire s a fe e ding tube , ha s a se iz ure disorde r, h as s e ve re c ognitive a nd othe r
im pa irm e nts, a nd re quire s 24-hour c a re
. R oc kda le did not c onte st a t tria l M rs. Eva ns’ s
pa st m e dic a l e xpe nse s, the fa c t tha t she ha d unde rgone m ultiple su r g i cal proc e dure s

a nd a l ong pe riod of hospita liz a tion, or tha t s he now wa s so se ve re l y im pa ire d tha t she

re quire s 2 4-hour c a re ; inste a d, R oc kda le foc u se d its c losing a rgum e n t s ole ly on issue s of ne glige nc e a

nd c a u sa tion. M ore o ve r, R oc kda le’s o wn e xpe rt ne urologist te stifie d
tha t M rs. Eva

ns ha d suffe re d m

ultiple stroke s a

nd ha d be e n

se ve re ly bra in da m a ge d,

a nd R oc kda le c onc e de d a t tria l tha t M rs. Eva ns ha d e xpe rie nc e d a “ c a ta strophic ” injury

a nd suffe re d a “ de va sta

ting” loss a nd tha t pa tie nts with rupture d a ne ury sm s “ e ithe r die

or the y don’ t do we ll.” Give n this re c ord, the jury ’ s a w a rd o f z e ro da m a ge s for M rs.
Eva ns’ s pa st pa in a nd suffe ring, the sa m e tim e pe riod for w h ic h it a wa rde d M rs. Eva ns he r pa st m ed i c a l e xpe n se s, w a s so c le a rly ina de qua te unde r a pre ponde ra nc e of the

14e vide nc e a s to s hoc k the c onsc ie nc e a nd ne c e ssita te a ne w tria l. Se e C

othe r n , 147 G a
. App. a t 200; Bre w e r , 102 Ga . App. a t 368-369 (1). 4

In a rguing tha t the j ury ’ s da m a ge s a wa rd wa s not s o c le a rly i na de qua te unde r

a pre ponde ra nc e of the e v ide nc e a s to shoc k the c onsc ie nc e , R oc kda le c ite s two c a se s for the c onte n tion tha t a jury m a y a wa rd spe c i a l d a m a g e s for pe rsona l injurie s, but n o da m a ge s for pa in a

nd suffe ring: Salv ador v
. C oppinge r , 198 G a. App. 386, 387-388 (1) (a ) (401 SE2d 5 9 0) (1991), a nd Ray v
. Stinson , 1 72 Ga

. App. 718, 719-720 (1) (B ) (324 SE2d 506) (1984), a ff’ d on othe r grounds, 254 Ga

. 3 75 (329 SE2d 502) (1985).
B oth c a se s, howe ve r, a

re distinguisha

ble from the pre se n t c a se
.

4 R oc kda le note s tha t a j ury m a y disre ga rd e x pe rt opinion te stim ony , e ve n if unc ontra dic te d. Se e Ste w ard v
. Me d. C e nte r of C e ntral Ga. , 239 G a
. A pp. 9 0 , 91 (520 SE2d 747) (1999). Howe ve r, the ba sic de sc riptions provide d b y m ultiple witne sse s of M rs. Eva ns’ s obse rva

ble lim ita tions a nd im pa irm e nts, the 24-hour c a re she re c e i ve s, a nd the history of he r p roc e dure s a nd hospita liz a tions following he r rupture d a ne ury sm c onstitute d fa c tua l ra the r tha n opinion te stim ony
. Se e C oc hran v
. Ly nc h , 1 26 Ga

. App. 866, 867 (2) (192 SE2d 1 65) (1972). And, “ [t] he dire c t a n d positive te stim ony of a n unim pe a c he d [fa c t] w i tne ss w hic h is not inhe re ntly i m proba b le , inc re dible or unr eas o n ab l e a nd whic h is not c ontra dic te d, c a n not be a rbitra rily disre ga

rde d by the trie r of fa c t.” N

e sbi t v. Nesbit , 241 Ga

. 351, 352 (2) (245 SE2d 303) (1978)

. Se e Lank ford v
. Holton , 187 Ga

. 94, 102 (9) (200 SE 243) (1938); S tude bak e r’s of Sav annah v
. Tibbs , 195 Ga

. App. 142, 146 (3) (392 SE2d 908) (1990); C o c h ran , 126 Ga . App. a

t 867 (2).

15In Salv ador , the jury “ a wa rde d plai ntiffs a tota l a m ount e qua l to the e xa c t

a m ount of the m e dical e xpe nse s re que ste d a nd prove d , but le ft b lank the spa c e s provide d for pa in a nd s uffe ring, lost wa g es , o t h er e xpe nse s , a nd prope rty da m a ge .” (Em pha s is supplie d.) Salv ador , 198 Ga

. App. a t 3 8 6. Give n tha t the jury ha d sim ply
le ft t he spa c e bla

nk for d a m a ge s for pa i n a nd suf f er in g , we d e c line d to rule out the possibility tha t the jury h a d in fa c t inte nde d som e of the da m a ge s a w a rde d to be for

pa in a nd suffe ring. Id. a t 387 (1) (a ). Tha t possibility doe s not e xist in the pre se nt c a se , howe v e r, give n tha t the jury wrote in z e ro i n the spa c e on the ve rdic t form for da m a ge s for pa in a nd suffe ring. 5
Sim ila rly , in Ray , we note d tha

t

e ve n though t h e jury ’ s ve rdic t spe c ific a lly s howe d tha t no a m ount for pa in a n d suffe ring ha d be e n a wa rde d t o pla intiff, in l ight of the fa c t tha t the jury a wa rde d to pla intiff a n a m ount for spe c ia l d a m a g e s be y o nd tha t prove n in the c a s e , we a

re of the opinion tha t the jury ve rdic t c ould ha ve inc lude d in the m inds of the jury

som e a m ount for pa in a

nd suffe ring.

5 W e a lso note d in Salv ador tha t we did not ha ve a “ full t ra n sc ript” a va ila

ble to c onside r on a

ppe a l, a nd thus we h ad to “ a ssum e tha t the tria l c ourt’ s c onc lusions in de ny ing the m otion for ne w tria l on the ina de qua c y o f t h e verdic t we re prope r.” Salv ador , 198 Ga

. App. a t 388 (1) (a ). B ut the full tra nsc ript is a v a ila ble for our re vie w in this c a se
. 16(Punc tua tion om itte d .) Ray , 172 Ga

. A pp. a t 719 (1) (B ). He re , in c ontra st, t he jury did

not a wa rd M rs. Eva

ns “ spe c ial d am ag e s be y ond tha t prove n in the c a se , ” a nd thus a portion of the spe c ia l da m a ge s c a nnot be sa i d to ha ve inc lude d som e a m o u nt for pa in

a nd suffe ring.
Additiona lly , both Salv ador a nd Ray c o nc lude d t ha t t he jury m a y ha ve de c ide d

to a wa rd spe c ia l d a m a ge s, but not to a wa rd da m a ge s for pa in a nd suffe ring, in light of
the pla intiff’ s c om

pa ra t ive ne glige nc e
. Se e Salv ador , 1 98 Ga

. App. a t 388 (1) (a ); Ray , 172 Ga

. App. a t 719 (1) (B ). B u t Salv ador a nd Ray pre da te Geo r gia ’ s pre se nt

a pportionm e n t sta

tute , OC GA § 51-12-33, whic h wa s e na c te d in 2 005 a nd suppla nte d
Ge orgia ’ s c om

m on la w c om p a ra t ive n e glige nc e re gim e with a sta tutor y s ys t e m of

“ a s signing re sponsibility for a n injury to a pla intiff a c c ording to his ‘ fa ult’ unde r subse c tions (a ) a nd (g) of the a pportionm e nt sta

tute .” Zaldiv ar v
. Pric k

e tt , 297 Ga

. 589, 594 (1) (774 SE2d 688) (2015). OC GA § 51-12-33 provide s in re le va n t pa rt: (a ) W h e re a n a c tion is brought a ga inst one or m ore pe rsons for injury to pe rson or prope rty a nd the pla intiff i s t o som e de gre e re sponsible for the injury or da m a ge s c la i m e d, the trie r o f fa c t, in its de te rm ina tion of the tota l a m ount of da m a g e s to be a w ar d e d, if a ny , sha ll de te rm ine the pe rc e nta ge of fa

ult of the pla intiff a nd t

he judge sha ll re duc e the a m ount of da m a g e s othe rwise a wa rde d t o the pla intiff in proportion to his o r h e r pe rc e nta ge of fa

ult. . . . 17(g) Notwithsta nding the provisions of this C o d e se c tion or a ny othe r provisions o f la

w whic h m ight be c o nstrue d to t he c ontra ry , the p la intiff sha ll not be e ntitle d to re c e i ve a ny da m a ge s if the pla intiff is 50 pe rc e nt
or m ore re sponsible for the injury or da m a ge s c la i m e d.

As o ur Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d, unde r the a pportionm e nt sta

tute , “ onc e lia

bility
ha s b e e n e sta

blishe d, the c a lc u l a tion of tota l d a m a ge s susta i ne d by the pla intiff is the
first ste p, a

nd t he a lloc a tion of re la tive fa ult a nd a wa rd of da

m a ge s a c c ording to tha

t

a lloc a tion is a distinc t se c ond s te p.” Martin v
. Six Flags Ov e r Ge o rgia II , 301 Ga

. 323,
338-339 (III) (801 SE2d 24) (2017). Ac c ordingly , unlike i n S alv ador a nd Ray , the jury
in t he pre se nt c a s e wa s ta ske d with c a lc ula t ing the tota l da m a ge s owe d to M rs. Eva ns, inc l uding da m a ge s for pa st pa i n a nd suffe ring, a s a distinc t first s te p, se pa ra te a nd a pa rt
from a ny subse que nt re duc tion in the tota l da m a ge s ba se d on t he pe rc e nta g e of M rs.
Eva ns’ s c om pa ra tive fa ult, suc h a s for he r fa ilure to se e k tre a tm e nt for he r c hronic hy pe rte nsion. 6 Se e id. R oc kda le ’ s re lia nc e on Salv ador

a nd Ray thus is m ispla c e d.

6 The i n sta

nt c a se a l so is distinguisha ble from C

olumbus Re

gional H e althc are Sy ste m v
. He nde rson , 282 Ga

. 598 (652 SE2d 522) (2007), whe re the pa re nts of a c hild who die d of a c e re bra l he m orrha ge sue d the hospita l to re c ove r for m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e a nd wrongful de a th. The j ury a wa rde d the p la intiffs d a m a ge s for m e dic a l e xpe nse s a n d pa in a nd suffe ring on the ir pre -de a th m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e c la im , but n o d am ag e s o n the i r wrongful de a th c la im

. Id. a t 598-599. The tria l c ourt subse que ntly gra nte d the pla i ntiffs’ m otion for a dditur unde r O C G A § 51-12-12 (b) b a se d on the jury ’ s a wa rd 18B e c a

use the jury ’ s a w a rd of z e ro da m a ge s for M r s
. Eva ns’ s pa st pa in a

n d
suffe ring wa s so c l e a rly ina de q ua te unde r a pre ponde ra n c e of t he e vide nc e a s to shoc k
the c onsc ie nc e , a ne w tria l is ne c e ssa ry , a nd the tria l c ourt a

buse d its d isc re tion in

c onc luding othe rwise

. Howe ve r, c ontra ry to M rs. Eva

ns’ s a rgum e nt, we c onc lude tha t
the re tria l c a n not be lim ite d sole ly to the issue of da m a ge s.
In c a se s like th e pre se nt one involving issue s of c o m pa ra tive ne glige nc e , the
Ge orgia Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t re vie w of the ve rdic t is a va ila ble unde r OC GA § 51-12-12, b u t if a n ew tria l is orde re d, i t m ust e nc om

pa ss a l l issue s a

n d c a nnot be
lim ite d to da

m a ge s. Se e He ad v . C

SX Transp. , 271 Ga

. 6 70, 673 (4) (524 SE2d 215) (1999); R obinson v
. Star G as of Haw k insv ille , 269 Ga

. 1 02, 104-105 ( 2 ) ( 498 SE2d 524) (1998); Bridge

s Farms v
. Blue , 267 Ga

. 505, 5 05-506 (480 SE2d 5 98) (1997).
W hile M rs. Eva

ns a rgue s tha t a ne w tria l lim ite d to da m a ge s in c om pa ra tive ne glige nc e

of no da m a ge s on the wrongf u l d eath c la im

. Id. a t 599. The Ge o rgia Supre m e C ourt re ve rse d, c onc luding tha t a jury ’ s a wa rd of no dam ag es o n a c l a im “ is not o ne re fle c t ing ‘ i na de qua te ’ da m a ge s for whic h the tria l c ourt m a y u s e its powe r to a dd to the ve rdic t unde r OC GA § 51-12-12 (b).” Id. a t 600. Se e M ultime dia Te c hnologie

s v
. W ilding , 262 Ga

. App. 5 76, 578 (1) (586 SE2d 74) (2003) (a wa rd of z e ro da m a ge s o n a c la im is, i n le ga l e ffe c t, a ve rdic t in fa vor o f the de fe nda nt o n tha t c la im ). He re , the pla i ntiffs a sse rte d two se pa ra te c la im s (m e dic a l m a l pra c tic e a nd loss of c o nsortium ), but, in nota

ble c ontra st to He nde rson , the jury a wa rde d som e d a m a g e s on b oth c la im s. He nde rson the re fore is ina pposite

.

19c a se s is a

uthoriz e d by

the pla in la

ngua ge of OC GA § 51-12-12 (b) a nd by Ge orgia ’ s

a pportionm e n t sta

tute , O C GA § 51-12-33, it i s we ll-e sta blishe d tha t “ this C ourt ha s n o

a uthority to ove rrule or m o dify a de c ision m a d e b y t he Supre m e C our t o f G eorgia .” (C ita tions a nd p unc t

ua tion om itte d.) Ga. Ports Auth. v
. Law y e r , 342 Ga

. App. 161, 163 (1) (803 SE2d 94) (2017). 7 C onse que ntly , this C ourt is not a t libe rty to disre ga

rd the
rule e nunc ia te d in He ad , Robinson , a nd Bridge s Farms . Se e id. Se e a lso Hay w ard v

. Re te ntion Alte rnativ e

s , 291 Ga

. App. 232, 234 (1) (661 SE2d 862) (2008). It follows
tha t t he re tria l of M rs. Eva

ns’ s m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e c la im a ga i n s t R oc kda le m ust

e nc om pa ss both lia

bility a n d da

m a ge s. 8
2. B e c a use M rs. Eva

ns’ s m e dic a l m a l pra c tic e c l a im a ga inst R oc kda le m ust be

re trie d on a ll issue s of lia

bility a nd da m a ge s, M r. Eva ns’ s d e riva tive c l a im for loss of

c onsortium a lso m

ust be re trie d. Se e Thomas v
. C lark , 188 Ga

. App. 606, 608 (1), (3)

7 In a re c e nt c a se , t

he Supre m e C ourt e xpre ssly de c line d to a ddre ss whe the r the spe c ific rule e nun ci at ed in He ad , Robinson , a nd Bridge s Farms for c o m

pa ra tive ne glige nc e c a se s should b e ove rrule d or m o difie d i n l ight o f Ge orgia ’ s a pportionm e nt sta tute . Se e Martin , 301 Ga . a t 340 (III), n. 10.

8 B e cause we c onc lude tha t a re tria l i s ne c e ssa ry on M rs. Eva

n s ’ s m e dic a l
m a lpra c tic e c la im

in light of the

c le a rly ina de qua t e da m a g e s a

wa rd for p a st pa in a

n d suffe ring, we ne e d not de te rm i ne whe the r the j ury ’ s a wa rd o f z e ro da m a ge s for future
m e dic a l e xpe nse s, pa st a nd future lost wa g e s, an d f u t ure p a in a nd s uffe ring wa s so c le a rly i na de qua te u nde r a pre ponde ra nc e of the e v ide nc e a s to s hoc k the c onsc ie nc e
. 20(373 SE2d 668) (1988) (c onc luding tha t be c a use “ the i ssue of c om

pa ra tive ne glige nc e is ine xtric a

bly joine d with the issue of da m a ge s,” ne w tria l wa s re quire d on c la im s of
both the injure d wife a nd he r husba nd, who a sse rte d c la im s for pa y m e nt of som e of the
wife ’ s m e dic a l bills a

nd for loss of c onsortium

); Hightow e r v
. Landrum , 109 Ga

. App. 510, 514, (4) (136 SE2d 425) (1964) (“ One spouse ’ s right of a c tion for the loss of the
othe r’ s soc ie ty or c on s ortium is a de riva tive o ne , ste m m ing from the right of the
othe r.” ). W e the re fore ne e d n ot a ddre ss M r. Eva ns’ s c onte ntion tha t the jury ’ s a wa rd
of $67,555 in da m a ge s t o him for loss of c o nsortium re nde re d the ve rdic t on tha t c la im

so c le a rly ina de qua te unde r a pre ponde ra nc e o f t he e vide nc e so a s to shoc k the

c onsc i e nc e
. J udgme nt re v e rse d and c ase r em ande d w ith dire c tion. Re e se , J ., c onc urs
. Mc M i llian, J ., c onc u rs in judgme nt only .*
*T H IS O PINIO N IS PH YSICAL PRE CE DE NT O N L Y. SE E CO URT O F
APPE AL S RUL E 33.2.

21