FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le 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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

A ugust 21, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A2 4 A0 3 7 8

. T HE M ED I CA L CEN TER OF CEN TR AL G E O R G I A, I N C. et al v

. TURN ER et al.

D I L L A R D , Presid ing J u d ge.

A llen Tu rner d ied d u e to c o mp lic atio ns fro m a su rgery to remo v e a p o lyp f ro m

his intestines. Fo llo w ing his d e a t h , his d au ghter—N o rk esia T u rner—su ed D r.

W illiam Tho m p so n; D r. H eather N olan; and their emp lo yer, the M e d ic al Center o f

Central G e o rgia, f

o r med ic a l malp rac t ic e and w r o ngf u l death. 1 T he c ase then

p ro c eed ed to trial, af

ter w hic h the j u ry r end ered a v erd ic t in Tu rner’ s f a v o r , aw ard ing

her ap p ro ximately $9 ,200,000 in d amages—$7 ,200,000 o f w hic h w ere no nec o no mic

1 Thro u gho u t the op inio n, w e ref er to A lle n T u r ner as “ A llen,” N o rk esia Tu rner a s “ T u rner,” the M ed ic al Center o f Central Geo rgia as “ M CCG,” and D r. W illiam T ho mp so n; Dr. H eather N o lan; and their emp lo yer, M CCG, c o llec tiv ely as

“ t he ap p ellants. ”d amages f

o r w ro ngf u l d eath. I n c hallenging the j ury v erd ic t and d enial o f sev eral p o sttrial mo tio ns, 2 the ap p ellants argu e (1 ) the j u d gment s h o u l d be rev ersed bec au se

Tu rner f a iled to p r esent su f

fic ient e v id enc e o f c au satio n; and (2) the j ury’ s aw ard o f

$7 ,200,000 in no nec o no mic d amages f or w ro ngf u l d eath imp ro p erly exc eed ed the

statu to ry limits o n su c h d a mages i n v io latio n o f OCGA § 51 -1 3- 1

. Fo r the f o llo w ing

reaso ns, w e af

f irm. 3

2 The t r ial c o u rt d enied ap p ellants’ p o st- t r ial mo tio ns f o r a new t rial, j u d gment

no tw ithstand ing the v erd ic t , and to remit and amend the j u d gment.

3 Oral argu ment w as held o n Febru ary 6 , 2024, a nd is arc hiv e d o n the Co u rt’ s

w ebsite. S ee Co u rt o f A p p eals o f the S ta te o f Geo rgia, Oral A rgu ment, Case N o. A 24A 037 8. (Feb. 6 , 2022), a v a i l a b l e a t http s: //v imeo

. co m/9 11 6 37 36 3. Sho r tly thereaf ter, this c ase w a s transf

erred to the Su p reme Co u r t o f G e o r gia bec au se it ap p eared to imp lic ate that co u r t ’s e x cl u s i v e j u r isd ic tio n ov er c o nstitu t io nal qu estio ns. S ee Ord er in Case N o

. A24A 037 8 (Ga. Ap p

. Feb. 7 , 2024). Ou r Su preme Co u rt then
retu rned the c ase to this Co u rt based o n its d eterminatio n that “ [e]v en assu ming that [the] case raises a no vel c onstitu tio nal qu estio n, the trial c o u rt d id no t distinc tly ru le

o n a ny su c h qu estio n

. . . . ” S e e Ord er in Case N o. S24A 06 6 4 ( G a

. M ar. 27 , 2024). Ord inarily, i s s u es wh ich “ h av e n o t b een ru l ed o n by th e t ri al co u rt m ay no t b e rai s ed

o n ap p eal

. ” Ga

. Dep ’t o

f Na t

. Res

. v. Co wet a Cn t

y ., 2 6 1 G a. 4 8 4
, 4 8 5 (4 0 5 SE2 d 4 7 0 ) ( 1 9 9 1 ). B u t here, t he trial c o urt d id no t ru le o n a no v el c o nstitu tio nal qu es t i o n bec au se—as exp lained in fra in D iv isi o n 2 —it f

ou nd that, in Atla n ta Ocu lo pla s ti c S u rgery, P. C

. v

. N e s tlehu t t , 286 Ga. 7 31 (6 9 1 SE2d 21 8) (201 0), the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia had alread y ru led on the c o nstitu tio nal qu estio n at issu e. A nd su f f ic e it to say,

w e are bo u nd by o u r Su p reme Co u r t’ s d ec isio ns. S ee W ho rto n v. S ta te , 321 Ga. A p p

. 335, 339 (1 ) (7 41 SE2d 6 53) (201 3) (no ting that “ vertic al stare d ec isis d ic tates that w e f aithf u lly ad here to the p rec ed ents established by the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia” ).

2V iew ing t he e v id e n c e i n the light mo st f av orable to t he ju ry’ s verd ic t, 4 the

rec o rd sho w s that in 2 0 1 7 , w h e n h e w as 6 9 years o ld , A llen w as ref erred to D r.

Tho mp so n by ano ther physic ian f o r su rgery t o e x c i s e a “ p o lyp in the very d istal

d u o d enu m. ” Prio r to su rgery, A llen u nd e rw ent an end o sc op y, a c o lo no sc o p y, and a

“ s mall [bo w el] f

o llo w thro u gh series” ; 5 bu t neither a CT sc an no r any o ther typ e o f
imaging w as c ond u c ted o n A llen. On M arc h 31 , 201 7 , D rs. Tho mp s o n and N o lan

p erf o rmed the o p eratio n, d u r i ng w hic h they u nexp ec ted ly d isc o v ered a c a nc ero u s

mass ap p ro ximately 25 p erc ent l a r g e r t h a n a go lf b all. A s a resu lt, the d o c to rs

d etermined they need ed to remo ve the m ass, as well as the p olyp

. The area o f

o p eratio n, then, bec ame “ mu c h larger” w ith “ m u c h higher risk

. ” A nd ac c o rd ing to

Tho mp so n , it w as no t an o p tio n to r emo v e o nly the po lyp and leav e the c a nc ero u s

mass to be exc ised in a su b s equ ent p r o ced u re.

4 S ee Mea do ws v

. Bea m , 302 Ga. 49 4, 49 5 (1 ) (807 SE2d 339 ) (201 7 ) (v iew ing the

ev id enc e in an ap p eal f

ro m a j u ry v erd ic t in the light mo st f av o rable to the p rev ailing p arty); P referred W

omen ’ s Hea lthca re LLC v

. S a i

n , 36 7 Ga. A p p

. 821 , 822 (888 SE2d 59 9 ) ( 2023) (“ On ap peal f o llo w ing a j ury trial, w e view the ev id e nc e in t he light mo st f av orable to the j u ry’ s v erd ic t. ” ).

5 A “ small bo w el f

o llo w thro u gh” inv olv es tak ing a series o f x- r a y s.

3A s they c o ntinu e d t he o p eratio n, D rs. Tho mp so n and N o lan also enc o u ntered

a “ large p u lsing v essel near the ao rta[,]” w hic h w as later d e termined t o be t h e

su p erio r m esentery artery (the “ SM A ” ) —the p rimary v essel su p p lying blo o d to the

intestines. B u t at the t ime, the su rgeo ns d id no t believ e the large b lo o d v essel w as the

SM A bec au s e they w ere o p erating “ f ar lef t” o f w here it is no rmally l o c a ted

. A s it

tu rned ou t, A llen’ s S M A w a s d isto rted and “ in an abno rmal p lac e. ” A dd itio nally,

sw elling in A llen’ s lymp h no des “ af f ec ted [the su rgeo ns’ ] ability to see things, w hic h

f u rther co mp lic ated [ t he] su rgery. ” A nd a t s o m e p o int d u ring su rge r y , o ne o f the

d o c to rs c lamp ed the SM A o n bo th sid es and c u t it in half

. 6 A f ter that, the “ v asc u lar

team” aid ed the su rgeo ns in attemp ting to rep air A llen’ s SM A.
Ultimately, D r s. T ho mp s o n and N o lan w ere a ble t o remo v e the p o lyp , the

c anc ero us m ass, asso c iated lymp h no d es, and ev e r ything they w o u ld need in o rd er f o r

the canc er to be ev alu ated

. A nd w hile A llen su rv iv ed the initial su rgery, o v er the next

f ew w eek s, he u nd erw ent nu mero us ad d itio nal su r geries d u e to the sev eranc e o f his

6 A t the time o f the su rgery, Tho m p so n w a s the su rgeo n of rec o rd and N o lan

w as a head resid ent. They w o rk ed to gether on the su rgery, bu t it is u nc lear f ro m the

o p erativ e rep o rt w hic h d o c t o r c u t the SM A.

4SM A

. Tragic ally, desp ite the ad d itio nal su rgeries, A llen died a f ter su f f ering “ mu ltisystem f ailu re. ”

Thereaf t er, Tu rner su ed M CCG, D r. Tho mp so n, and Dr. N o lan, asserting

c laims of med ic a l malp rac tic e and w ro ngf u l d eath. S p e c i f

i c a lly, Tu rner alleged that

Th o mp so n and N o lan’ s negligenc e in treating A llen—w hic h f e ll beneath their

p ro f essio nal stand a r d o f c a re—c au sed and c o ntribu t e d to his inj u ries and d eath.

Tu rner also c laimed , i

n ter ali a , that a p re- su rgery CT sc an o r M RI o f A lle n ’ s abd o men

w o u ld hav e rev ealed the c anc ero u s mass and w hether the SM A w as in “ the z o ne o f

their su r gery. ” A c c o rd ing to Tu rner, the p ro p e r stand ard of c a re requ ired t he d o c to rs

to id entif y and p r o tec t the SM A

. A nd as requ ired b y law , Tu rner attac hed an af f id av it

f ro m a m e d i c al e xp ert, D r

. M arv in Ev a ns, t o her c o m p laint in su p p o rt o f the
allegatio ns. 7

7 S ee Jen s en v

. Yo n

g Ha E n gler , 31 7 Ga. A p p

. 87 9 , 881 (1 ) ( 733 SE2d 52) (201 2) ( “ [ A ] p laintif

f is requ ired to attac h an OCGA § 9

– 11

– 9

. 1 e xp ert af f id av it t o a
c o mp laint r aising a c laim f o r med i c a l malp rac tic e against a med ic al d o c to r. A bsent

c o mp lianc e w ith the exp ert af f id av it requ irement, a m ed ic al malp r ac t ic e c laim is

su bj ec t to d ismissal f

o r failu re to state a c laim. ” ( c itatio n o mitted )); OCGA § 9

– 1 1

– 9

. 1 (a) (“ I n any ac tio n f

o r d amages alleging pro f

essio nal malp rac tic e

. . . the p laintif f shall b e requ ired t o f

ile w ith the c o mp laint an af fid a vit of a n exp ert c o mp etent to t e s t i f y , w hic h af f id av it shall set f

o rth sp ec if

ic ally a t least o ne negligent ac t o r o missio n c laimed
to exist a nd the f

ac tu al b a s is f

o r eac h su ch c laim. ” ) ; OCGA § 9

– 1 1

– 9

. 1 (g) (1 1 ) (“ [One

o f ] [t]he p ro f

essio ns to w hic h this Co d e sec t io n shall ap p ly [is]

. . . [m]ed ic al d o c to rs

5The ap p e llants f iled a j o int answ er to Tu r ner’ s c o mp laint, d enying many o f its
allegatio ns and asserting sev eral af f irmativ e d ef

enses. D isc o v ery then ensu ed , and the

c a s e u ltimately p ro c eed ed to a j u ry trial. Fo llo wing t r ial, the j u ry r end ered a v erd ic t

in fav o r o f Tu rner, aw ard ing her (1 ) $6 1 8,853. 59 f o r med ic al and f

u neral exp enses; (2)

$1 ,4 43,300 f

o r A llen’ s p ain and su ff ering; and (3) $7 ,21 6 ,500 in no nec o no mic

d amages f

o r w ro ngf u l d eath. The trial c o u rt s u bsequ ently enter ed j u d gment o n the

v erd ic t, ad d ing $21 6 .00 in f av o r o f Tu rner f

o r co u rt c o sts. T he ap p ellants then f iled

a mo tio n and a m en d e d mo tio n f o r a new trial and j u d gment no tw ithstand ing the

v e rd ic t. T hey also f

iled a mo tio n “ to remit and a mend the j u d gment,” a r g u i n g

that—as to her w r o ngf

u l- d eath c laim—the ap p ro x i m ately $7 ,200,000 aw a rd ed f o r

no nec o no mic d amages exc eed ed the $350,000 c ap o n su c h damages in OCGA § 51

-

1 3

- 1. Fo llo w ing Tu rner’ s r esp onses and a hearing on the mo tio ns, t he trial c o u r t

d enied them all in sep arate o rd e rs. This ap p eal f o llo w s.

W hen a j ury r e tu r ns a v erd ic t, it mu st be a f f i r m e d o n ap p eal “ if there is any

ev id enc e to su pp o rt it, a nd the ev id enc e is to be c o nstru ed in a light mo st f av o rable to
the p rev ailing p arty w ith ev ery p resu mp tio n and inf e renc e in f

av or o f su staining the

. . . . ” ).

6v erd ic t. ” 8 Pu t ano ther w ay, a j ury v erd ic t, “ af ter ap p ro v al by the trial c o u r t, and the
j u d gment thereo n w ill no t be d istu rbed o n ap p eal if su p p o rted by any ev id enc e, in the

absenc e o f any material erro r o f law

. ” 9 A nd w e rev iew a d e nial o f a mo tio n f o r a new

trial “ ac c o rd ing to this same s tand ard

. ” 1 0 With t his d ef erential s tand ard o f rev iew in

mind , w e tu rn to the ap p ellants’ sp ec if ic c laims o f

erro r

.

8 Ya sh S o ls

. , LLC v

. N

ew Yo rk G lo b

. Co n s u lta n ts C o rp

. , 352 Ga. A p p

. 1 27 , 1 32 (1 ) (83 4 S E 2 d 12 6 ) ( 2 0 19 ) ( p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a cco rd Green v

. K ey Cu sto m Ho mes , I nc

. , 302 Ga. Ap p

. 800, 802 (1 ) (6 9 2 SE2d 56 ) (201 0); see Mea do ws , 302 Ga. a t 4 9 5 (1 ) (no ting that “ ou r r ev iew o f a j u r y’ s v erd ic t is f o r any ev id enc e, and w e lac k the p o w er to interf e re w ith the j u ry’ s f

ind ing if it is su p p o rted by any ev id enc e ”).

9 Ya s h S o l s

. , LLC , 352 Ga. A p p

. a t 1 32 ( 1 ) ( p u nc t uatio n o m itted ); a cco rd Green , 302 Ga. A p p

. at 802- 3 (1 ); s e e Green wa y v

. S lo a n , 21 1 Ga. 7 7 5, 7 7 6 (1 ) (88 SE2d 36 6 ) (1 9 55) ( “ A v erd ic t su p p orted by any c o m p etent ev id enc e w hic h has the ap p ro v al o f the trial j ud ge w ill no t be d istu r bed by this c o u rt u nless erro rs o f law ap p ear. ” ).

1 0 Ya s h S ols

. , L LC , 352 G a. A p p

. at 1 32 (1 ) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a cco rd Green , 302 Ga. Ap p

. at 802 (1 ); see P atters o n

- Fo wlkes v

. C

h a n cey , 29 1 Ga. 6 01 , 6 0 2 ( 7 32 SE2d 252) ( 201 2) (“ In its rev iew o f t he d enial o f a mo tio n f or ju d gment no tw ithstand ing the

v erd ic t, this Co u rt is t o d etermine w hether there is any ev id enc e to su p p o rt t he j u ry’ s

v erd ic t. This same s tand ard o f ap p ellate rev iew is to be ap p lied in the s itu atio n o f the d enial o f

. . . a mo t io n f

o r new trial o n general gro u nd s. I n so d o ing, this Co u rt mu st

c o nstru e the ev id enc e in a light mo st f av o rable to the p rev ailing party in th e c o urt belo w

. ” (c itatio ns o mitted ) ).

71

. The ap pellants f irst argu e the j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t sho u ld be rev ersed bec au se

Tu rner f ailed to p ro v e their alleged ly neglige n t f a i l u r e to p erf

o rm a p re- su rgery CT

sc an c au sed A llen’ s inj u r ies and d eath. W e d isagree.

A s o u r Su p reme Co u rt has exp lained , a p erso n “ p ro f essing t o p rac tic e su rgery

o r t h e ad m inistering o f m e d ic ine f o r c o mp ensatio n m u st b ring to the exerc ise o f his

p ro f essio n a reaso nable degree o f c a re and sk ill. ” 1 1 I nd eed , any inj ury resu lting f ro m

“ a w ant o f su ch c are and s k i l l s h a l l be a to r t f or w hic h a rec o v e ry may be had

. ” 1 2

I m p o rtantly, thr e e essential elements to establish liability in a med ic al- malp rac tic e

ac tio n hav e emerged f

ro m OCGA § 51

- 1

- 27 : “ (1 ) the du ty inherent in the

d o c t o r

- p a tient relatio nship ; ( 2) the breac h of that d u ty b y f ailing to exerc ise the

requ isite d egree o f sk ill and c are; and (3) that this f a ilu re be the pro ximate c au se o f the
inj ury su stained

. ” 1 3

1 1 OCGA § 51

- 1 -27 ; a cco rd Zwi ren v

. Tho mpson , 2 7 6 Ga. 49 8, 49 9 (57 8 SE2d 86 2) (2003).

1 2 OCGA § 51

- 1 -27 ; a cco rd Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 49 9

.

1 3 Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. a t 49 9 ( p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ); a c co rd Reev es v

. Ma h a thre , 328 Ga. A p p

. 546 , 548 (7 5 9 SE2d 9 26 ) (201 4)

.

8A nd bec au s e med ic al malp r ac tic e is a c iv il c au se o f ac tio n, a p laintif f “ m u st

p ro v e liability ( i. e. , d u ty, negligenc e, p ro ximate c au se) by a p rep o n d e ranc e o f the

ev id enc e. ” 1 4 I n this resp ec t, the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia has e xp lained that

“ [ p ]ro o f by a p rep o nd e ranc e simp ly requ ires that the ev id enc e sho w that so mething

is mo re li kely tru e tha n n o t

. ” 1 5 Similarly, many f

ed eral co u rts—inc lu d ing t he Su p reme

Co u rt o f the United States and the Elev e nth Circ uit—hav e “ e x p lained that the

bu rd en o f sho w ing so mething by a ‘ p rep o nd eranc e o f the ev id enc e’ simp ly requ ires

the trier o f f

ac t t o believ e that the existenc e o f a f a c t is mo re pro ba b le than its

no nexistenc e. ” 1 6

1 4 Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 49 9 ( p u nc tu atio n o m itted ); a cco rd Kn i ght v

. Ro b erts , 31 6 Ga. A p p

. 59 9 , 6 03- 0 4 (1 ) (7 30 SE2d 7 8) (201 2).

1 5 W h i te v

. S ta t

e , 307 Ga. 6 0 1 , 6 07 (3) (b) (837 S E 2 d 8 3 8 ) (2020) (emp hasis

su p p lied ) ; s ee W

hi te v. S ta n ley , 36 9 Ga. A p p

. 3 3 0 , 335 (1 ) (89 3 SE2d 46 6 ) (2023) (exp laining that the Su preme Co u rt o f Geo rgia has p ro v id ed a “ straightf o rw ard [ ] and brief d ef initio n” o f

p r ep ond eranc e o f

the ev id e nc e, ho ld ing that it “ s imp ly requ ires that the ev id enc e sho w that s o mething is mo re lik ely tru e than n o t” ( p u n c tu atio n
o mitted ) ).

1 6 W hi te , 36 9 Ga. A p p

. at 335 (1 ) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) (emp hasis su p p lied ); s ee C o n crete Pi pe & P ro d. o f Ca l. , In c. v

. C

o n s tr. La b o rers Pen s i

o n Tr. fo r S

. C

ali

. , 508 U

. S. 6 02, 622 (1 )(a) (1 1 3 SCt 226 4, 124 LEd 2d 5 39 ) ( 19 9 3); Metro

. S tev e do re C o

. v

. Ra mb o , 521 U. S. 1 21 , 1 37 (I I ) n. 9 (1 17 SCt 1 9 53, 1 38 LEd 2d 327 ) ( 1 9 97 ); U ni ted S t a t e s v

. Almedi na , 6 86 F3d 1 31 2, 1 31 5 (I I I ) (1 1 th Cir. 201 2); Un ited S t a tes v

. Tra i

n o r , 37 6 F3d 1 325, 1 331 (I II ) (A ) (1 1 th Cir. 2004).

9A d d itio nally, w e hav e held that to rec o v er in a med ic al- malp rac tic e c ase based

o n w ro ngf

u l d eath, a p laintif

f “ mu st sho w no t o nly a v i o l a ti o n o f the a p p lic able

med ic al s tand ard o f care bu t a lso that the p u rp o rted vio latio n o r dev iatio n f ro m the

p ro p e r stand ard of care is the p ro ximate c a u s e o f the inj u ry su stained

. ” 1 7 A nd
signif ic a ntly, to satisf

y this bu rd en, t he plaintif f mu st “ u se exp e r t t e stimo ny bec au se

the qu estio n o f w hether the alleged p r o f e ssio nal negligenc e cau sed the p laintif f ’ s
inj ury is generally o ne f

o r sp ec ializ ed exp ert k no w led ge beyo nd the k en o f the av erage

1 7 Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC v

. Lo n g , 357 Ga. A p p 1 7 , 1 8, 21 (1 ) (a) ( 849 SE2d 7 46 ) (2020) (p u nc tu atio n omitted ); a cco rd Kn i ght , 31 6 Ga. A p p

. at 6 0 3 ( 1 ) ; s e e Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 500 (“ I t is c lear that a p laintif f c anno t rec o ve r f

o r m ed ic a l malp r ac tic e, ev en

w here ther e i s ev id enc e o f negligenc e, u nless the p laintif f establishes by a p r e p o nd eranc e of t he ev id enc e that the negligenc e “ either p ro ximately cau sed o r
c o ntribu ted t o cau se p laintif f harm. ” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) ); Pru ette v. P ho eb e Pu tn ey Mem’ l Ho s

p

. , 29 5 Ga. A pp

. 335, 338 (1 ) (6 7 1 SE2d 844) (2008) (ac k no w led ging that

an ac tio n f

o r w ro ngf u l d eath c an be the basis f o r a med ic al- malp rac tic e c laim).

10layp e rso n. ” 1 8 B u t qu estio ns regard ing c au s atio n are “ p ec u liarly qu estio ns f or the j u ry

exc ep t in c lear, p lain, p alp able and u nd isp uted c ases. ” 1 9

Partic ularly relev ant here, in Geo rgia, med ic al c au satio n mu st “ be pro v ed t o a

reaso nable d e gree o f med ic al c ertainty and c anno t be based o n m ere sp ec u latio n, and

the ev id enc e mu st p ro v id e mo re than a mere or bare p o s s i b i l i t y t h at the alleged
negligenc e c au sed the p laintif f ’ s inj u ry. ” 2 0 So , the exp ert’ s t estimo ny “ mu st sho w as

an ev id entiary t hresho ld that [his o r her] o p inio n regard ing cau satio n is based , at the

1 8 Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC , 357 Ga. Ap p

. at 21 (1 ) (a) (p u nc t u a t i o n o mitted ); s ee Zwi ren , 27 6 G a. at 49 9 ( “ I n o r d er to establish p ro ximate c au se by a prep o nd eranc e o f the ev id e nc e in a med ic al malp rac t ic e ac tio n, the p laintif f mu st use exp ert testimo ny bec au se the qu estio n o f w hether the allege d p r o f e ssio nal negligenc e cau sed the p laintif f ’ s inj u ry is generally one f o r sp ec ializ ed exp ert k no w led ge beyo nd the k en o f the av erage layp e rso n. ” )

.

1 9 Ada ms v

. Pi

edmo n t Hen ry Ho s

p. , In c

. , 36 5 Ga. A p p

. 257 , 2 6 6 (1 ) (87 8 SE2d 1 1 3) (2022) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a cco rd P n eu mo Ab ex , LLC , 357 Ga. A pp

. at 21 (1 ) (a);

s e e A tla n ta Ob

s tetri cs & Gyn eco lo

gy Grp. , P. A. v

. C

olema n , 26 0 Ga. 56 9 , 5 7 0 ( 39 8 SE2d 1 6 ) (1 9 9 0) (“ [P]ro ximate c au se mu st be d etermined by a j u ry exc ep t i n p lain and

u nd isp u ted c a ses. ” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )).

2 0 Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC , 357 Ga. A p p

. a t 2 2 (1 ) (a) (p unc t uatio n and f o o tno t e
o mitted ) ; s e

e Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 503 (“ G e o rgia case law requ ires o nly that an exp ert state an o p inio n regard ing pro ximate c au satio n in terms stro nger than that o f med ic al p o ssibility, i

. e

. , r easo nable med ic al p ro bability o r reaso nabl e m e d i c al certainty. ” ); W a lker v

. Gi l es , 27 6 Ga. A p p

. 6 32, 6 38 (1 ) ( 6 24 SE2d 1 9 1 ) (2005) ( “ M ed ic al cau satio n
mu st b e pro v ed to a reaso nable d egree of med ic al c ert a i n t y a n d c anno t be based o n mere sp ec u latio n. ” (p unc tu atio n o mitted )).

11least, o n the d eterminatio n that there w as a reaso nable p ro b ability that the negligenc e

c au sed the inj u ry. ” 2 1 B u t a r easo nable d egree o f m e d ic al c ertainty, “ while an

ac c e p table means by w hic h a n exp ert may exp ress t he c o nf id enc e he o r she has in the

co n cl u s i o n fo r m e d a n d t he pro bability that it is ac c u rate, is n o t the requ ired sta n da rd

. ” 2 2

To the c o ntrary, Geo rgia law r equ ires o nly that “an exp e rt state an o p inio n regard ing

p ro ximate c au satio n in terms stro nger than that of med ic al p o ssibility, i

. e. , rea s o n a b le

medi ca l pro ba b ili t

y o r reaso nable med ic al c ertainty. ” 2 3

Pu t ano ther w ay, in p ro v id ing an o p i n io n in a med ic al- malp rac tic e c ase, an

exp ert “ need no t u se the magic w o rd s reaso nable degree o f med ic al c ertainty, bu t the

f a c ts i n the rec o r d mu st b e su f f ic ient to meet the legal s tand ard embo d ied in tho se

2 1 Pn eu mo Ab e

x , LLC , 357 Ga. A p p

. at 22 (1 ) (a) (p u nc tu atio n o mi t t e d ) ; s ee Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 49 9 ( exp laining, in a med ic al malp rac t ic e c ase, that t he “ exp ert’ s testimo ny mu st s ho w as an ev id entiary thresho ld t hat the exp e r t’ s o p inio n regard ing

c au satio n is based , at the least, o n the d eterminatio n t hat t here w a s a r easo nable p ro bability that the negligenc e c au s ed the inj u ry” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) ).

2 2 Pn eu mo A b ex , LLC , 357 Ga. A p p

. at 22 (1 ) (a) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) (emp hasis su p p lied ); a cco rd Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 503.

2 3 P n eu mo A b ex , L

LC , 357 Ga. A p p

. at 22 ( 1) (a) (p unc t uatio n o mitted ) (emp hasis su p p lied ); a cco rd Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 503.

12‘ m agic wo rd s. ’ ” 2 4 I nd eed , in p resenting an o p inio n o n c au satio n, the exp ert is

“ r equ ired to exp ress s o me b asis f o r bo th the co nf

id enc e w ith w hic h his c o nc lu sio n is

f o rmed , and the p ro bability that his co nc lu sio n is ac c u rate. ” 2 5 There mu s t b e , then,

a “realistic assessment o f the lik eliho o d that the alleged negligenc e c au sed the inj u ry

o r d e ath. ” 2 6 A nd a s w e hav e p rev io u sly exp lained , “ p erhap s no thing i n m e d ic ine is

abso lu tely c ertain, bu t t he law intend s t hat if the p l a i n t i ff’ s med ic a l exp ert c anno t f o rm

an o p inio n w ith su f

f ic ient c e rtainty so a s to mak e a m ed ic al ju d gment, there is no thing

2 4 Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC , 357 G a. A p p

. at 24 ( 1 ) (a) (p unc t uatio n o mitted ); s ee Ja cks o n v

. G

ers ho n , 251 G a. 5 7 7 , 57 9 (308 SE2d 1 6 4) ( 1 983) (“ M agic w o rd s alo ne, no matter ho w o f

ten rep eated , d o no t mak e a fac t. Rather the f a c t s in the rec o rd mu st be

su f fic ient to m eet the legal stand ard embo d ied in the magic wo rd s. I t is ask ing to o
mu c h o f an exp ert w itness to exp e c t him to s tate p o int- blank ab o u t a p ro fessio nal

c o lleagu e, ‘H e w as negligent. ’ ” ); An t ho n y v

. C h a mb les s , 231 Ga. A p p

. 6 57 , 6 59 (1 ) (500 SE2d 402) ( 1 9 9 8) (“ A ltho u gh it is no t nec essary fo r the p laintif f ’ s e xp erts to u se the magic w o rd s ‘ reaso nable d egree o f m ed ic al c ertainty’ in d e sc ribing t he d ec ed ent’ s p ro sp ec t o f

su rv iv al w ith ap p ro p riate treatment, su c h p ro sp ec t mu st be mo re than a

mere c hanc e o r sp ec u latio n. ” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )).

2 5 Pn eu mo Ab ex , L

LC , 357 Ga. A p p

. a t 24 (1 ) (a) (p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ); a cco rd Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 501

.

2 6 Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC , 357 G a. A p p

. at 24 ( 1 ) (a) (p unc t uatio n o mitted ); s ee Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. a t 501 (“ I n p r esenting an o p inio n o n c au s atio n, the exp ert is requ ired
to exp r ess so me basis f

o r bo th the c o nf

id e nc e w ith whic h hi s c o n c lu sio n is f o rmed , and the p ro bability that his c o nc lu sio n is ac c u rate. ” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )).

13o n the rec o rd w ith w hic h a ju ry c an mak e a d ec isio n w ith su f f ic ient c ertainty so a s to

mak e a legal j u dgment. ” 2 7

Tu rning to the instant c ase, t h e a p p e llants argu e Tu rner f ailed to p resent

su f fic ient ev id enc e that the su rgeo ns’ f ailu re to c o nd uc t a p re- su rgery CT sc an c au sed

the do c to rs to sev er A llen’ s SM A , w hic h resu lted in his d e ath. This c laim is b elied by

the rec o rd

.

A s an initial matter, Tu rner’ s exp e rt—D r

. Ev ans— t estif ied that A llen “ d ied

as a r esu lt o f the d iv isio n o f the [SM A ] and all o f the c o nsequ enc es that o cc u rred af ter

that. ” And the a p p ellants’ exp ert, D r. Geo rge Fu hrman, agreed that “ the f ac t that the

SM A w as sev ered and t he lac k of blo o d f lo w to the bo w el [that] o c c u rred

. . . w as w hat

u ltimately led to [A llen’ s] d eath

. . . .” Ev a n s also testif ied that it is o u tsid e the

ap p lic able stand ard o f care t o c ut and d iv id e a blo o d v e ssel w itho u t id entif ying it. So ,
it is u nd isp u ted that sev e ranc e o f A llen’ s SM A d u ring su rgery c au sed his d eath.

N ev ertheless, t he issu e bef o re u s is w hether it is mo re lik ely t han no t that D rs.

Tho mp so n a nd N o l an ’ s f a i l u re to co n du c t a C T s ca n prio r to su rgery w o uld hav e

rev ealed the u nu su al lo c atio n o f the SM A, so the d o c to rs c ou ld hav e av o id ed c u tting

2 7 Pn eu mo Ab ex , L

LC , 357 Ga. A p p

. a t 24 (1 ) (a) (p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ); a cco rd Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 501

.

14it. I n this regard , D r. Ev ans testif ied that, in his p r o f

e ssio nal op inio n, “[h]ad one d o ne

a CT sc an w ith the p ro p e r tec hniqu e lo o k ing at blo o d v essels, then y o u w o u ld be able

to see t he [SM A ] i n i t s c o urse[ ] and w hether it’ s d isto rted o r no t, yo u w o uld k no w

that by u s e o f a [CT] s c an. ” Fu rther, w hen a sk e d whether he c o uld say “ w ithin a

reaso nable medi

ca l pro b a b i

li t y ” that a CT s c an w o u ld lik ely hav e p rev ented the SM A

f ro m being c u t in tw o , Ev ans testif ied that, ev en tho u gh it c a nno t be gu arantied , the

c hanc e o f it hap pening w o u ld be “ a lo t l es s

. ” 2 8 I n other w o rd s, Ev ans testif ied that if

a CT sc an o r any o ther imaging s c an su c h as an MRI had been p erf o rmed , “ y o u w o u ld

hav e k no w[n] that the anato my is d isto rted and

. . . y o u c o u ld av o id the trap o f c u tting

the blo o d v essel. ” Giv en the f o rego ing, Ev a n s’ s e x p ert testimo ny p ro v id ed amp le

ev id enc e to establish that there w as mo re than a “ m ere p o ssibility” that Tho mp s o n

and N o lan’ s f

ailu re to o rd e r a p re- su rgery CT sc an re su l te d i n the s ev e ranc e o f

A llen’ s SM A , w hic h c au sed his d eath. I n d e ed , Ev ans testif ied there w as a med ic al

p ro bability it d id c au s e A llen’ s d eath, w hic h is c ertainly eno u gh here. 2 9

2 8 (Emp hasis su p p lied ).

2 9 See Z wi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 503 (exp laining t hat, in a med ic a l malp rac tic e c ase, G e o r g ia c aselaw “ requ ires o nly that an e xp ert state an o p inio n regard ing p ro ximate

c au satio n in term s st r o n ger than that o f med ic al p o s sibility, i. e. , reaso nable medi ca l pro ba b ili ty o r reaso nable med ic al c ertainty” (emp hasis su p p lied )); Ev a n s v

. Med. C tr.

15I m p o rt a n tly, Tu rner w as no t requ ired to p resent exp ert testimo ny that the

exp ert was abso lu tely c ertain a CT sc an wo u ld hav e p rev ented the do c to rs f ro m

sev ering A llen’ s SM A. 3 0 A s a resu lt, to the extent there w as c o nf lic ting testimo ny

“ r egard ing c au satio n, it is the p ro v inc e o f the j u ry to d ec id e w hic h testimo ny is mo st

believ able. ” 3 1 A nd here, the j u ry ev id ently believ ed D r. Ev a ns’ s testimo ny that a p resu rgery CT sc an w o u ld li

kely

— i

. e. , mo re lik ely than no t—hav e prev ented t he d o c to rs

o f C en t. Ga

. , 359 Ga. Ap p

. 7 97 , 800 (86 0 SE2d 1 00) (2021 ) (same); K n i ght v

. Ro b erts , 31 6 Ga. A p p

. 5 9 9 , 6 0 4 (1 ) ( a) (7 30 SE2d 7 8) (201 2) (same). And w hile ap p ellants o nly

c hallenge w hether there w as su f f ic ient ev id enc e to establish c au satio n, D r. Ev ans also testif ied that it w as “o utsid e the stand ard o f c are to c u t a nd d iv id e the v essel w itho u t k no w ing w hat it is. ” H e also test i f i e d that t he f

ailu re to id entif

y the lo c atio n o f the SM A w as o u tsid e the stand a rd o f c are w hether it was in its no rmal lo c atio n o r p u lled
to the sid e bec au s e it i s s u c h a “ c r i t ic al v e ssel” and “ mu st be sav ed to sav e the p atient. ”

3 0 S ee Zwi ren , 27 6 Ga. at 501 (“ [P]erhap s no thi n g i n medi ci n e i s a bs olu t ely certa i n , bu t the law intend s t hat if the p laintif f ’ s med ic a l exp ert c a nno t f o rm an o p inio n w ith

su f fic ient c ertainty so as to mak e a med ic al j u d gment, there is no t hing o n t he rec o rd

w ith w hic h a j u r y c an m a k e a d e c i s i o n w ith su f f ic ient c ertainty so as to mak e a legal j u d gment. ” ( p u nc tu atio n o mitted ) (emp hasis su p p lied ); P n e u mo A b ex , LLC , 357 Ga. A p p

. at 24 (1 ) (a)(same).

3 1 Meko ya , 36 0 Ga. A p p

. at 46 2 (2); s e e B r o o k s v

. C elli n Mfg. C o

. , 251 Ga. 39 5, 39 8 ( 306 SE2d 6 57 ) (1 9 83) (no ting t hat w hen e xp e rts o f f er c o nf lic t ing testimo ny, it is
t h e p r o v i n ce o f the j u ry to d ec id e w hic h testimo ny is m o r e believ able); Fi rema n ’s F u n d I n s

. C o

. v

. H o lder C o ns tr. Grp. , LLC , 36 2 Ga. A pp

. 36 7 , 37 3 (1 ) (a) ( 86 8 SE2d 485) (2022) (“ I n t he f

ac e o f c o nf

lic ting exp e rt testimo ny, it [i]s the p ro v inc e o f the j u ry to d ec id e w hic h exp ert, if

either, to c red it. ” (p u nc tu atio n o m itted )).

16f

ro m sev ering Allen’ s SM A

. Und er s u c h c irc u mstanc es, Tu rner p resented su f f ic ient

ev id enc e to p ro v e c au satio n by a p rep ond eranc e o f the ev id enc e

. 3 2

2. Next, the ap p ellants argu e the j u ry’ s aw ard of a p p ro ximately $7 ,200,000 f o r

no nec o no mic d amages as to the w ro ngf ul- d eath c laim m u st be remitted and amend ed

bec au se it exc eed ed the $350,000 c ap o n no nec o no m ic d amages imp osed by OCGA

§ 51

- 1 3- 1

. B u t this argu m ent is f orec lo sed by bind ing Su pr e m e Co u rt o f Geo rgia

p rec ed e nt. 3 3

3 2 See C o lema n , 26 0 Ga. at 57 0- 7 1 (ho ld ing that, a s to c au satio n, there w as
ev id enc e to su p p o r t the j u ry’ s v erd ic t in f av or of the p laintif

f in a med ic al- malp rac tic e
c ase when ev id enc e sho w e d that the d o c to r’ s negligent ad m inistratio n o f a ho rmo ne sho t resu lted in t he p atient need ing an abo rtio n); Mo ore v

. S i n gh , 326 Ga. A p p

. 805, 81 0 (1 ) (7 55 SE2d 31 9 ) (201 4) (ho ld ing t hat the trial co u rt e r red by granting a mo tio n f o r a d irec ted v erd ic t in a med ic al- malp rac tic e case when there w a s t e s t imo ny by med ic al e xp erts that the d o c to r breac hed the stand ard o f c are, resu lting in a missed d iagno ses, w hic h requ ired su r gery); Kn i ght , 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 608 (1 ) (b) (ho ld ing p laintif f p resented su f

f ic ient e v i d e n ce o f ca u s a t i o n i n a m e d ic al- malp rac tic e c ase w hen exp ert t estif

ied , i n t e r a li a , d o c to r’ s f

ailu re to t imely d iagno se the p atient w as a
c o ntribu ting c a u se lead ing to her u ltimate d eath).

3 3 We t hank the Geo r gia H o sp ital A sso c iatio n, I nc

. and the M ed ic al A sso c iatio n
o f Geo rgia f o r their tho u ghtf

u l amic u s brief

.

17The j u ry rend ered a v erd ic t in Tu r ner’ s f av o r, aw ard ing her, in relev ant p art,

$7 ,21 6 ,500 in no nec o no mic d amages f o r her w ro ngf

u l- d eath c laim o nly. 3 4 Thereaf ter,

ap p ellants f

iled a mo tio n “ to r e mit and amend the j u d gment,” argu ing these

no nec o no mic d a ma g e s imp ro p erly exc eed e d the $350,000 limit o n su c h d amages

u nd er OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1

. A nd in d enying the m o t io n, the t r i a l c o u r t ru led that, in

Atla n ta Ocu lo

pla s ti c S u rgery, P

. C

. v

. N es tlehu tt , 3 5 o u r Su p reme Co u rt held the c ap s o n

no nec o no mic d amages in OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 vio lated the c o nstitu tio nal right to a j u ry

trial. 3 6 Fu rther, the N

es tlehu t t Co u rt no ted that “[t]he general r u l e i s that an

3 4 The d amages aw ard ed f o r Tu rner’ s med ic al- malp rac tic e c laim w e re so lely

ec o no mic , and tho se are no t at issu e in this ap p eal.

3 5 286 Ga. 7 31 (6 9 1 SE2d 21 8) (201 0).

3 6 S ee Ga. Co nst. A rt. I, Sec

. I, Para. XI (a) (p ro v id ing that the r ight to a j u ry trial

“ s hall remain inv io late” ); U. S. Co nst. amend

. V I I (“ I n [s]u its at c o mmo n law , w here the v alu e in co ntro v ersy shall exc eed tw enty d o llars, the right o f trial by j u ry shall be p reserv ed , and no f

ac t tried by a j u ry, shall be o therw ise re- examined in a ny Co u rt o f the United States, than ac co rd ing to the ru les o f the c o mmo n law

. ” ); s ee a ls o Mels o n
v

. D i c ks o n , 6 3 Ga. 6 82, * 6 86 ( 1 ) ( 1 8 7 9 W L 2 6 29 ) (1 87 9 ) (ho ld ing that “ an imp artial j u ry is the c o rner- sto ne o f the fairness o f t r ial by j u ry” ); Jo n es v

. C lo u d , 1 1 9 Ga. A p p

. 6 9 7, 7 06 (5) (1 68 SE2d 59 8) (1 9 6 9 ) (same); S ec. & Ex ch. C o mm’ n v

. Ja rkes

y ,

_ _ U. S.

_ _ (I I ) ((1 44 SCt 21 1 7 , 21 28) (2024) (no ting that “[t]he right to t r ial by ju ry is ‘o f

su c h imp o rtanc e and o cc u p ies so f irm a p lac e in o u r histo ry and j u risp r ud e nc e that any seeming c u rtailment o f the right’ has alw ays been and ‘ sho u ld be sc ru tiniz ed w ith the

u tmo st c are’ ” ) (c itatio n o mitted )); M o rris S. A rno ld , A Hi s to ri ca l I n q u i r y i n to the Ri ght to Tri a l b y Ju ry in C

o mplex C i v i l Li ti ga ti o n , i n T he Bi ll o f Ri ghts : O ri gi n al Mea n i n g

18u nc o nstitu t io nal statu te is w ho lly vo id and o f no f o rc e and ef

f e ct f ro m t he d ate it w as

e n a c t e d [,]” 3 7 and as to OCGA § 5 1

- 13- 1 , it f o und no reaso n to d ev iate f r o m th i s
general ru le. 3 8

Relev a nt here, OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 p ro vid es as f o llo w s:

I n any v erd ic t retu r n e d o r j ud gment e ntered in a med ic al malp rac tic e

ac tio n, i n c lu di n g a n a cti o n fo r wro ngfu l dea th , a gainst o ne o r mo re health

c a r e p ro vid ers, the to tal amo u nt r e c o v erable by a c laimant f o r

no nec ono mic d amages in su c h ac tio n shall be limited to an amo u nt no t

to exc eed $350,000. 0 0 , regard less o f the nu mber o f d ef end ant health

c are p ro v id ers a gainst w ho m t he c laim is asserted o r t he nu m b e r o f

sep arate c au ses o f

ac tio n o n w hic h the c laim is based

. 3 9

A nd in N es tlehu tt , the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia u nambigu ou sly held —w itho u t any

qu alif ic atio ns o r exc e p tio ns—that “ the no nec o no mic d amages cap s in OCGA §

a n d C u rren t Un ders ta n di

ng 39 9 , 400 (Eu gene W

. H ic k o k , J r. ed

. , 1 9 9 3) (“ That sp e c ial af f ec tio n f o r the j ury o u ght to be v iew ed as relev a nt no t j u st to the f ac t that j u ry trial

w as ‘ p reserv ed ’ in t he Co nstitu tio n; it is r elev ant as w ell to interp r eting the sc o p e o f the a c tu al p ro v isio n, f

o r it giv e s t h e r i g h t granted an au r a a nd the Co nstitu tio n a meaning they w o u ld no t o therw ise ha v e i f t h e institu tio n o f j u ry trial had been regard ed mo re o r less ind if ferently. ” ).

3 7 N es t lehu tt , 286 Ga. at 7 38 (3) (p unc t uatio n o mitted ).

3 8 S ee i d

. at 7 38 (2)- ( 3).

3 9 OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 (b) (emp hasis su p p lied ).

1951 –1 3– 1 v io late the r ight t o a ju ry trial as gu aranteed u nd er t he Geo rgia

Co nstitu tio n. ” 4 0 Tho se c ap s exp ressly inc lu de w ro ngf u l- d eath c laims in the co n tex t o f

a medi ca l- ma lpra cti

ce a cti o n

. 4 1

N ev ertheless, ap p ellants argu e the $350,000 c ap on no nec ono mic damages in

O C G A § 5 1- 13

- 1 a p p l i e s t o T u r n e r ’s wr o n g fu l- d eath c laim bec au se N es tlehu tt inv o lv ed

o nly a med ic al- malp rac t ic e c l aim. Sp ec if ic a lly, t hey c o ntend the N es tlehu tt Co urt

w o u ld no t hav e ru led that statu to ry c a p s o n no nec o no m ic d amages in wro ngf u l- d eath

c ases are u nc o nstitu ti o nal bec au se that issu e w as no t bef o re it. B u t in o u r v iew ,

ap p ellants read Nes t

lehu tt f ar to o narro wly.

A s the Su preme Co u rt o f Geo rgia has exp lained , Geo rgia’ s c o nstitu tio nal j u ry

trial right “ p ro tec t s o nly tho se ri ghts to a j u ry trial that e xisted in Geo rgia in 1 7 9 8 [the

4 0 N es tlehu tt , 286 Ga. at 7 31 (emp hasis su p p lied ); s ee s upra n. 36

. I n a f o o tno te,

o u r Su p reme Co u rt c l a r i f ied that it exp ressed “no o p inio n as to su bsec t io n (f ) o f OCGA § 51

– 1 3– 1 , w hic h p ro v id es f o r p erio d ic p ayment o f f

u tu re d amages aw ard s o f $350,000 o r mo re in med ic a l malp rac tic e ac tio ns. ” N es tlehu t t , 286 Ga. at 7 31 (1 ) n. 1

. B u t th e allo w anc e f

or perio d ic p ayments o f d a mages in OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 ( f ) i s irrelev a nt to t he N

es tlehu t t Co u rt’ s exp ress ho ld ing that a l l o f the ca ps on d amages d elineated in o ther sec tio ns o f the statu te are u nc o nstitu tio nal.

4 1 S ee OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 (p ro v id ing f or a $350,000 c ap on no nec o no mic d amages in “any v erd ic t r etu rned o r j u d gment e ntered in a m e d ic al malp rac tic e ac tio n, i nclu di n g a n acti on fo r wro n

gfu l dea th

. . . ” (emp hasis su p p lied )).

20time a t w hic h o u r state a d o p t ed the Co nstitu t io n o f 17 9 8]. ” 4 2 A nd altho u gh N es tlehu tt

d id no t inv o lv e a c laim s p e c if i c a l l y c h arac teriz ed as o ne f o r w ro ngf

u l death, o u r

Su p reme Co u rt d esc ribed the legal ri ght av ailable in 17 9 8 as c laims i n v o l v i n g t he
negligenc e o f a health c are p ro v id er. 4 3 Su f f ic e it t o say, the w r o ngf

u l- d eath c laim in thi

s

c ase i nv o lv es neglig e n c e b y a health c are p r o v id er. 4 4 A nd a gain, the N es tlehu tt Co urt

exp ressly ru led the damages c ap s in OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 are u nc o nstitu tio nal as ap p lied

to med ic al malp r ac tic e , w hich

— b y the exp lic it terms o f the s tatu te— i n c lu des wro n gfu l

dea th

. 4 5 Signif

ic antly, o u r Su p r e m e Co u rt d id n o t e xc lu d e w r o ngf u l- d eath c laims

4 2 Ta ylo r v

. D ev ereu x Fo u n d. , In c

. , 31 6 G a. 44, 58 (I I I ) (A ) (885 SE2d 6 7 1) (2023) (emp hasis su pp lied ); s e

e N es tlehu tt , 286 G a. at 7 34 (2) (a) ( “ Giv en the c lear existenc e
o f med ic a l negligenc e c laims as o f the ad o p tio n o f the Geo rgia Co nstitu tio n o f 1 7 9 8,

w e hav e no d if

f ic u lty c onc lu d ing that su c h c laims are enc o mp assed w ithi n t h e r ight
to j u ry trial u nd er A rt. I , Sec . I , Par. XI (a)” ).

4 3 S e e Nes tlehu tt

, 286 Ga. at 7 34 (2) (a) (“ [ A ]t the time o f the ad o p t io n o f o u r Co nstit u t i o n o f 17 9 8, there d id exist the c o mmo n law right to a j u ry trial f o r c laims i nv o lv i ng the negli

gen ce o f a hea lth ca re pro v i

der , w ith a n attend ant right to the aw ard o f the f u ll measu re o f d amages, inc lu d ing no nec o no mic d amages, as d etermined by the j u ry. ” (emp hasis su p p lied )).

4 4 S e e T a y l o r , 31 6 Ga. at 59 ( I I I ) (B ) (“ [T]he c laim that w as r estric t ed by t h e statu te—a c laim f

or no n- e c o no mic d amages in a to rt c ase in v o l v i n g med ic al negligenc e—w as w ithin the sc o p e o f the co ns t i t utio nal right t o trial by j u ry in Geo rgia. ” (emp hasis su p p lied )).

4 5 S ee s u pra no te 41

.

2 1i n v o lv i

n g medi ca l ma lpra cti

ce in f ind ing this asp e c t o f the statu te u nc o nstitu tio n a l

. Simp ly p u t, setting asid e w r o ngf u l- death c laims u nrelated t o m ed ic al m a l p rac tic e, 4 6

the N e s tlehu t t Co u rt held that c au ses o f ac tio n i n v olv i n g med ic al malp rac tic e existed

in 1 79 8, a n d a s a resu lt, the cap s o n no nec o no m ic d a mages in OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 are

u nc o nstitu t io nal. And here, Tu rner’ s w r ongf u l- death c laim u nqu estio nably inv o lv es

med ic al m alp rac tic e, so the statu to ry c ap o n d amages as to that c laim v i o l a t e s her

i nv i o l a te right to a j u ry trial u nd er the Geo rgia Co nstitu tio n. 4 7

4 6 W e exp ress no op inio n as to w hether a statu t e c ap p in g damages o n a
wr o n g f u l

- d e a t h cl a i m u n r e lated to med ic al malp rac tic e w ou ld b e co nsti t u t i o n a l , a s t h a t is a no v el qu estio n f

o r o u r Su p reme Co u rt to answ e r. S ee Ga. Co nst. art. V I , § 6 , ¶ I I (1 ) ( “ The Su p reme Co u r t sha l l b e a c o urt o f r ev iew and shall exerc ise exc lu siv e ap p ellate j u risd ic tio n in

. . . [a]ll c ases inv olv ing the c onstru c tio n o f a treaty o r o f the Co nstitu tio n o f t he State o f Geo rgia o r of the United States and all c ases in w hic h the

c o nstitu tio nality o f a l a w , o rd inanc e, o r c o nstitu tio nal p ro v isio n has b een d raw n in qu estio n. ” ); bu t s ee S ta t

e v

. D a v i s , 303 Ga. 6 84, 6 87

- 88 (1 ) (81 4 SE2d 7 01 ) (201 8) (“ T he Co u rt o f A p p eals has limited j u risd ic t io n [in c ases su ch a s this]

. . . o v er c ases that inv o lv e the ap plic atio n, in a gener a l s en s e , o f u nqu es ti on ed a nd u n amb i

gu o u s pr o v i s i o n s o f the Co n sti t

u t i o n to a giv en state o f fac ts a nd that d o no t inv o lv e
c o nstru c tio n o f so m e co nstitu tio nal pro visio n d irec tly in qu estio n and d o u btf u l either

u nd er its o w n terms o r u nd er the d ec isio ns o f the Su p r eme C o u r t o f G e o r gia o r the Su p reme Co u rt o f

the United States. ” (emp hasis su p p lied )).

4 7 The Su p r e m e C o u r t o f G e o r g i a i n Ne st l e h u tt mad e t w o u nqu alif

ied statements that a l l of the c ap s on d amages in OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 a re u nc o nstitu tio nal. Sp ec if ic ally,
at the o u tset o f the o p inio n, the Su p reme Co u r t no ted that” [ b]ased o n [its] view o f the

rec o rd and the ap p lic a ble law , . . . the no nec o no m ic d a mages cap s in OCGA § 51

– 1 3– 1

v io late the c o nstitu tio nal righ t t o trial by j u ry

. . . . ” Nes tlehu tt , 286 Ga. at 7 31

. A nd

22Fo r all these reaso ns, w e af f irm the j u ry’ s v erd ic t in f av or o f Tu rner.

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Bro wn a n d Pa dgett, JJ. , co n cu r

.

later in the o p inio n, the Co u rt reiterated that it “ c o nc lu d e[d ] that the no nec o no mic d amages c ap s in OCGA § 51

– 1 3– 1 v io late t he right to a j u ry t rial a s gu aranteed u nd er the Geo r gia Co nstitu tio n. ” N e s tlehu tt , 286 Ga. at 7 38 (2) (b). Giv en t hat OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 inc lu d es w ro ngf

u l d eath as a type o f med ic al- malp rac tic e c laim, a nd t he Su p reme Co u rt in N

es tlehu t t d id no t exc lu d e su c h c l a i m s f r o m its ho ld ing, w e are bo u nd to

c o nc lu d e that—lik e t he c ap on d amages in med ic al- malp rac tic e c ases delineated i n OCGA § 51

- 1 3- 1 —the c ap on w ro ngf u l- d e ath c laims asserted i n s u ch c ases are lik ew ise u nc o nstitu tio nal. S ee G a. Co nst. o f 19 83, A rt. V I , Sec

. V I , Par. V I (“ T h e d ec isio ns o f

the Su p reme Co u rt shall bind all o t her c o u rts as prec ed ents. ” ) ; S ta te v

. S mi th , 308 Ga. A p p

. 345, 352 (7 07 SE2d 56 0 (201 1) ( “ [T]he d o c trine o f stare d ec isis p ro hibits this Co u rt f

ro m igno ring the v alid p rec ed ent o f a high er c o u r t. ”); S ta te v

. Ja cks o n , 287 Ga. 6 46 , 6 5 8 (5) (6 9 7 SE2d 7 57 ) (201 0) (“ Stare d ec isis is an imp o rtant p rinc ip le that p ro mo tes the r u le o f law

. . . . ” ) ; s ee a ls o K u rt T. Lash, Ori gi n a li s m, Po pu la r S o v erei

gn ty, a n d Rev ers e S ta re D eci s i s , 9 3 V a. L. Rev

. 1437 , 1 454 (2007 ) (no ting that “ [v ]ertic al s tare d ec isis ref ers to the bind ing e ff

ec t o f p rec ed ent o n lo w er c o u rts,” and that “[s]erio u s ru le of law c o sts wo u ld f o llo w if lo w er co u rts w ere free to igno re p rec ed e nt established by a higher c o u rt o f ap p eal” ).

23