"Georgia Supreme Court declares caps on malpractice lawsuits are unconstitutional" unanimous ruling from conservative court. perhaps this is why it wasnt included in the recent health reform bill. Ga. Supreme Court declares caps on malpractice lawsuits are unconstitutional | Political Insider "The Georgia Legislature passed the law as part of its 2005 Tort Reform Act Today’s decision stems from a lawsuit against an Atlanta plastic surgery practice. Mrs. Nestlehutt went to Dr.Cole regarding the bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth. Cole subsequently performed a face-lift combined with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing. Initially, her healing seemed normal. But she soon developed a rash, followed by open wounds on her cheeks and temples. Eventually the wounds healed, but she was left with permanent scarring. she sued the plastic surgery practice alleging that Cole had been negligent. The jury returned a verdict of $1,265,000. However, that amount exceeded the maximum allowed under the 2005 law, which established limits on the amount of “noneconomic damages” that could be recovered. Such damages do not include medical expenses, or past and future earnings, but do include compensation for “pain and suffering.” Under the law, the most one can get is $350,000 for claims against one or more medical practitioners, and a total of $1,050,000 for claims against multiple practitioners and medical facilities. Following the verdict, which exceeded the total allowed under the law, the Nestlehutts filed a motion to declare the state law unconstitutional. In February 2009, the trial court did that and awarded the Nestlehutts the full verdict. Oculus filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and Oculus then appealed to the state Supreme Court. “The Georgia Constitution states plainly that ‘[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,’” today’s 22-page opinion states. The very right to a trial by jury “includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of…damages, if any, awarded to the [plaintiff].” The fact that the 2005 law permits full recovery of noneconomic damages “up to the significant amount of $350,000 cannot save the statute from constitutional attack,” the opinion says. “‘f the legislature may constitutionally cap recovery at [$350,000], there is no discernible reason why it could not cap the recovery at some other figure, perhaps $50,000, or $1,000, or even $1.’ The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury.” "
what am i missing? did i make some smart@$$ comment to start the thread? these kind of answers make me think your positions are weak on this issue.
Georgia Supreme Court rules on the Georgia State Constitution. They struck down a Georgia law for not aligning itself with the Georgia State constitution. The concept is the same but it does not mean that you would get the same ruling on a federal statute in a federal court. And why does everyone assume when tort reform is mentioned that it is strictly speaking to capping what the plaintiff can receive in damages?
