A damage cap is a statutory limit on the amount of money a claimant can recover, regardless of what a jury might otherwise award. Many states have enacted caps on certain categories of damages in medical malpractice cases. Georgia once had such a cap, but the situation in Georgia today is shaped by a significant decision of the Georgia Supreme Court. This guide explains the history of the cap, what the court decided, and what the law currently provides for medical malpractice wrongful death cases.
The 2005 Damage Cap
In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly enacted a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases as part of a tort reform package. Noneconomic damages are damages for losses that do not have a fixed dollar value, such as pain and suffering and the loss of the enjoyment of life, as opposed to economic damages like medical bills and lost earnings.
The 2005 statute set the cap at $350,000 for noneconomic damages in actions against health care providers and against medical facilities. The structure allowed somewhat higher aggregate limits when multiple facilities or multiple providers and facilities were involved, but the core figure was a $350,000 limit on noneconomic damages. The cap applied to medical malpractice claims generally, which would have included medical malpractice claims arising from a death.
The Nestlehutt Decision
The 2005 cap did not remain in force. In 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court decided the case of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt. In that decision, the court held that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution.
The court’s reasoning rested on the constitutional right to trial by jury. The court explained that the right to a jury trial existed at the time Georgia adopted its first constitution and that this right included the jury’s role in determining the full measure of damages, including noneconomic damages. By placing a fixed ceiling on what a jury could award for noneconomic damages, the cap interfered with the jury’s function as the finder of fact. On that basis, the court struck the cap down.
The Current State of the Law
As a result of the Nestlehutt decision, there is currently no statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in Georgia. This includes medical malpractice cases that involve a death. A jury in a Georgia medical malpractice case is not limited by a fixed ceiling when determining noneconomic damages.
For a wrongful death claim arising from medical malpractice, this means the recovery is not subject to the $350,000 cap that the 2005 statute would have imposed. The wrongful death claim is measured by the full value of the life of the decedent, as provided in Georgia’s wrongful death statutes in Title 51, Chapter 4, and the noneconomic portion of that value is not limited by a statutory cap.
How This Applies to Wrongful Death Damages
A medical malpractice death in Georgia can give rise to the same two claims that arise from any wrongful death. The wrongful death claim seeks the full value of the life of the decedent, which Georgia courts describe as including both the economic value of the life and the intangible value of living. The intangible component is noneconomic in nature, and it is not subject to a statutory cap.
The separate survival action, brought by the personal representative of the estate under O.C.G.A. 9-2-41, may recover the deceased person’s pre-death losses, including conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, and funeral expenses. The pain and suffering portion of a survival action is also noneconomic and is likewise not limited by the struck-down cap.
Punitive Damages Are a Separate Topic
Damage caps are sometimes confused with the separate rules on punitive damages. Punitive damages are not part of the full value of the life and are not available in the wrongful death claim itself. They may be sought through a survival action, and they are governed by O.C.G.A. 51-12-5.1, which sets its own standards and, in many tort actions, its own limit. Those punitive damages rules are distinct from the noneconomic damages cap that Nestlehutt addressed. The Nestlehutt decision concerned the cap on noneconomic compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases, not punitive damages.
Procedural Features of Medical Malpractice Cases
While there is no noneconomic damages cap, Georgia medical malpractice cases do carry procedural requirements that are separate from the question of caps. For instance, Georgia law requires that certain professional negligence complaints be accompanied by an expert affidavit identifying at least one negligent act or omission. Requirements of this kind affect how a medical malpractice case proceeds but are different from a limit on the amount of damages.
Summary
Georgia enacted a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in 2005, but the Georgia Supreme Court declared that cap unconstitutional in 2010 in Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, holding that it violated the constitutional right to a jury trial. As the law currently stands, there is no statutory cap on noneconomic damages in Georgia medical malpractice cases, including those involving a wrongful death. A wrongful death recovery arising from medical malpractice is measured by the full value of the life of the decedent and is not subject to that former cap.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.