Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery PC v. Nestlehutt

The damage cap in O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1 unconstitutionally infringed upon the right to a jury trial, because it undermined the jury's basic function as factfinder by nullifying any portion of a jury's noneconomic damages award exceeding $350K.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case requires us to assess the constitutionality of OCGA § 51-13-1, which limits awards of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases to a predetermined amount. The trial court held that the statute violates the Georgia Constitution by encroaching on the right to a jury trial, the governmental separation of powers, and the right to equal protection. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we find that the noneconomic damages caps in OCGA § 51-13-1 violate the constitutional right to trial by jury, and we therefore affirm.1 In January 2006, Harvey P. Cole, M.D., of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, d/b/a Oculus, performed CO2 laser resurfacing and a full facelift on appellee

Betty Nestlehutt. In the weeks after the surgery, complications arose, resulting in Nestlehutt’s permanent disfigurement. Nestlehutt, along with her husband, sued Oculus for medical malpractice. The case proceeded to trial, ending in a mistrial. On retrial, the jury returned a verdict of $1,265,000, comprised of $115,000 for past and future medical expenses; $900,000 in noneconomic damages for Ms. Nestlehutt’s pain and suffering; and $250,000 for Mr. Nestlehutt’s loss of consortium. Appellees then moved to have OCGA § 51-13-1, which would have reduced the jury’s noneconomic damages award by $800,000 to the statutory limit of $350,000, declared unconstitutional. The trial court granted the motion and thereupon entered judgment for appellees in the full amount awarded by the jury. Oculus moved for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal ensued.

Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery PC v. Nestlehutt

The damage cap in O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1 unconstitutionally infringed upon the right to a jury trial, because it undermined the jury's basic function as factfinder by nullifying any portion of a jury's noneconomic damages award exceeding $350K.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report