Judge Strikes Down Med-Mal Caps

Three years after the General Assembly enacted SB 3 to place a cap on non-economic damages in Georgia, a trial court judge has ruled the cap unconstitutional.  (The trial court judge is also expected to address whether the gross negligence standard for emergency department medical care is unconstitutional in a subsequent order.)

The plaintiff, who was injured when he fell off a ladder, contends he was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of the malpractice of the hospital, emergency room doctors and radiologists.  With limited discovery, the trial court reasoned, “…that given the near certainty that a jury would award non-economic damages well in excess of the statutory cap in this case if the plaintiffs recover a verdict, the caps here have an immediate and present impact on the proceeding.”

The trial court found that the cap on non-economic damages violates the equal protection clause of the Georgia Constitution.  It stated, “Equal protection simply prohibits the legislature from making invidious distinctions and enacting classifications that lack a sufficient justification.”  The court found that, “The principal distinction the legislature made is between persons suffering personal injuries from tortfeasors generally, and persons who suffer from one specific group of professional defendants.” The court went on to say that, “…the statute effectively puts substantial limitations on the rights of the poor and middle class to recovery while leaving the right to virtually unlimited recoveries unimpeded for the wealthy.”  And the court noted that, “…the limitation on non-economic damages falls instead, on the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the homemaker who does not work outside the home, and others with little earnings.”

MAG believes that the court’s arguments are flawed in several ways. While some may argue the statute might have originally created a divide between the “haves” and “have nots,” an award for lost earnings is restitution the individual would have received in the absence of the tortuous conduct.  This point of law is designed to make the plaintiff whole in a relative (i.e., pre-injury conditions), fact-based way – not to become a windfall for the plaintiff. 

 “Georgia’s residents have been well served by SB 3 when in comes to increased access to health care,” says MAG President Jack M. Chapman Jr., M.D. “And we are disappointed with the trial court’s decision as we believe it jeopardizes access to heath care for patients in the state.” Dr. Chapman also stresses that, “Physician services are far more accessible today than they were in 2005, the year SB 3 was enacted. This law has been extremely effective in reducing professional liability premiums and reinforcing critical health care needs like obstetrical and general surgery services in the state.”

MAG will continue to manage this priority issue on behalf of its members so the people who live in Georgia have access to quality health care and increased peace of mind.

Contact MAG General Counsel Donald Palmisano via e-mail at dpalmisano@mag.org in the event you have questions. A copy of the judgment is available at www.mag.org.