Damages

November 16, 2020

Future Medical Expenses? Only If the Doctor Testifies they Are Likely

by Christopher Simon

Recently, a Georgia appeals court issued an opinion in a lawsuit stemming from serious injuries a victim suffered in a motor vehicle accident. There was no debate about who caused the crash and no debate about the past medical care. The issue was whether the jury was allowed to consider the future medical care.

The defendant in the matter admitted responsibility, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in past damages and $100,000 in future medical expenses. After the verdict the defense asked the Judge to set aside the part of the verdict regarding the future medical expenses award saying that the Doctor did not testify they would probably be necessary; they just said they might be necessary. The procedure is called a Motion for JNOV. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting the motion, because the evidence supported the award.

Under OCGA § 9-11-50 (b), judges may only grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), in cases when, without weighing the evidence’s credibility, there is only one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment. In cases where there is conflicting or insufficient evidence, the JNOV is inappropriate. Further, the standard for reviewing a JNOV is “whether the evidence, with all reasonable deductions, demanded a verdict contrary to that returned by the factfinder.” Courts have long held that it is an error to grant a JNOV if there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

June 4, 2019

How do I Get Lost Wages in an Injury Case, an Appellate Opinion Clarifies

by Christopher Simon

Getting lost wages in an injury case is more difficult than getting medical care because the court applies a “proven with specificity” standard and prevents speculation as to what they might have been. This presents massive problems for people that have a cash income because if they are not paying taxes, then to claim it is tax fraud. Additionally, unless it is rock solid that income will be down, the courts will just throw it out.

In April 2019, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a Georgia personal injury case discussing the plaintiff’s claim for future lost wages. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, finding the evidence of any decrease in future income to be too speculative.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was sitting in her car, stopped at a red light, when an employee who worked for the defendant rear-ended her. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Specifically, the plaintiff suffered “a whiplash-type injury to her cervical spine, wrist swelling, and facial bruising with a minor laceration.” Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that her previous back injuries were exacerbated.

July 2, 2016

Supreme Court of Georgia Clarifies Damages Recoverable for Death of a Pet

by Christopher Simon

In an earlier post, we looked at an intriguing Court of Appeals decision in which the Court ruled that when a dog had a non-existent or nominal fair market value, the damages recoverable for the negligent death of a pet were limited to the actual value of the pet, which included economic damages such as veterinary expenses. However, in a recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, in part, the Court of Appeals’ limitations on the appropriate measure of damages.

As a reminder, this case arose from the the death of a mixed-breed dachshund who was owned by the plaintiffs. The dachshund’s death coincided with the dog’s boarding at an Atlanta kennel. The dachshund had been boarded at the kennel for 10 days, along with the plaintiff’s mixed-breed Labrador retriever, who had been prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication. The plaintiff had given personnel at the kennel the medication along with instructions detailing how it should be administered to the Labrador retriever. Shortly after being returned to the plaintiff, the dachshund suffered acute renal failure, which the plaintiff alleged was caused by the kennel’s staff negligently administering the medication intended for the Labrador retriever to the much smaller dachshund. The dachshund underwent various veterinary interventions over the next nine months but ultimately died.

April 24, 2016

Georgia Court of Appeals Rules in Forged Mammogram Case

by Christopher Simon

Although medical mistakes resulting from faulty equipment or inadvertent human errors are not particularly uncommon, many do not expect intentional malfeasance on the part of medical professionals. However, even if a situation is not anticipated, it certainly does not mean it’s impossible. Indeed, in a recent decision, Jefferson v. Houston Hosps., Inc., the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed an interesting situation regarding the liability of a medical facility for its employee’s willful forgery of patients’ mammography results.

Jefferson concerned the forgery of three patients’ mammography results at a medical facility in Houston County, Georgia. All three patients received mammograms at the facility in 2009, and all three mammograms were performed by the same mammography technologist. Although the technologist was supposed to transfer mammography images to a radiologist for interpretation, the technologist testified that she used passwords she learned through her training duties to enter the system and forge mammogram results. The technologist admitted that she understood this conduct to be beyond the scope of her duties, and she ultimately pled guilty to criminal charges associated with this conduct. After the fraud was discovered, the medical facility issued a press release stating that an employee had processed a number of mammogram results without procuring a reading from a radiologist and instructed patients to receive new mammograms. All three plaintiffs returned for new mammograms, all of which were found to be normal. The plaintiffs then brought suit against the various defendants, asserting claims for, inter alia, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, and conversion. The hospital ultimately moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that: (1) the technologist did not act within the scope of her duties, as is necessary for the hospital to be vicariously liable for the technologist’s conduct; (2) the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) none of the plaintiffs suffered actual damages as a result of the technologist’s conduct. Following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, all the plaintiffs appealed.

May 17, 2015

What Damages are Recoverable in Georgia for the Death of a Pet?

by Christopher Simon

In a recent decision, Barking Hound Village, LLC v. Monyak, the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed an interesting question arising from a lawsuit brought against a kennel by the owners of a deceased daschund. On appeal, one of the questions the court needed to answer was whether the trial court erred in its ruling on the appropriate measure of damages for the loss of the dog.

The principal defendant in the case, Barking Hound Village, is a kennel located in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2012, the plaintiffs in this case boarded two of their dogs, the aforementioned daschund and a mixed-breed labrador retriever, at Barking Hound for about 10 days. The evidence showed that, while under Barking Hound’s care, the plaintiff’s daschund was administered toxic doses of a medication that had been prescribed to the labrador retriever. The medication had been left at the kennel by the plaintiffs along with instructions that it was supposed to be administered to the labrador retriever. Three days after retrieving their dogs, the labrador was diagnosed with acute renal failure that ultimately led to its death about nine months later. The plaintiff brought a negligence suit against the kennel, alleging various forms of negligence as well as fraud. Barking Hound moved for summary judgment on all the claims, but the trial court denied the motion except as to the fraud claim. Both the defendant and plaintiff appealed the various summary judgment rulings.