Source: https://www.atphillipslaw.com/malpractice-decision/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:00:24+00:00

Document:
S09A1432. ATLANTA OCULOPLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. v.
damages for Ms. Nestlehutt’s pain and suffering; and $250,000 for Mr.
denied, and this appeal ensued.
and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
against multiple health care providers and medical facilities. Id. at (c), (d), (e).
hospitals and other institutional “medical facilities.” Id. at (a) (3).
insurance by insurance providers.” Id. at p.2.
court’s holding regarding the constitutionality of a statute de novo.
(Footnotes omitted.) Rhodes v. State, 283 Ga.361, 362 (659SE2d370)(2008).
since the Revolution,” as authoritative on jury trial right as of 1798).
is of limited utility in ascertaining the extent of the jury trial right as of 1798.
negligence is proved in such a case the law will provide a remedy.
substance, precursors to the modern medical malpractice action.
enlightened conscience of impartial jurors).
since explicitly found to be an issue for jury determination.
to recover for “all personal wrongs and injuries”); Scott v. Sheperd, 95 E. R.
(Emphasis added.) Pollard v. State, 148 Ga. 447, 454 (96 SE997) (1918).
as determined by the jury.
violates the constitutional right to jury trial.
or treble damages attest to the validity of the caps on noneconomic damages.
being sold was previously site of commercial landfill).
but rather merely operate upon and thus affirm the integrity of that award.
necessarily a function of, and merely added to, the jury’s damages award.
judicial remittitur from statutory damages caps).
only in capital cases); Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., 651 NW2d 437 (III) (A) (Mich. App.
2002) (constitution provides that “right of trial by jury shall remain”); Etheridge v.
retroactive application would result in substantial inequitable results. Id. at 453.
Accord Findley v. Findley, 280 Ga. 454 (1) (629 SE2d 222) (2006).
with “time-honored” process relied on by “generations”); Federated Mut. Ins.
the decision herein shall be applied retroactively.
trial court’s award of prejudgment interest under OCGA § 51-12-14.
means. Accordingly, this enumeration lacks merit.
and Nahmias, JJ., who concur specially.
retroactive application, in which I concur only in the result.
U.S. 86, 97-98 (113 SC 2510, 125 LE2d 74) (1993).
“rested on two ‘basic norms of constitutional adjudication.’” Harper, 509 U.S.
at 95 (quoting Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322).
Id. (quoting Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322-323).
LE 360) (1932). But this Court has, at least until recently, followed the U.S.
not yet final. [Footnote 2] Accord, Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S.
314 (107 SC 708, 93 LE2d 649) (1987).
State is more consistent with that expressed in Chevron Oil than that of . . .
Harper.” 280 Ga. at 459.
Supreme Court. See Harris v. State, 273 Ga. 608, 610 (543 SE2d 716) (2001) (citing Teague v.
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (109 SC 1060, 103 LE2d 334) (1989)).
near a thousand years.” ).
make sense.” (emphasis in original)).
invented in violation of stare decisis.
U.S. at 106 (Scalia, J., concurring) (citation omitted).
we may disregard current law and treat similarly situated litigants differently.
whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule.” Id.
Justice Hines join in this special concurrence.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 v.