## Facts

- Dr. Harvey E. Cole, practicing with Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. (d/b/a Oculus), performed CO₂ laser resurfacing and a full facelift on Betty Nestlehutt in January 2006.
- Post-surgery complications allegedly caused permanent facial disfigurement.
- Betty Nestlehutt and her husband sued for medical malpractice and loss of consortium.
- A first trial ended in a mistrial; a second trial resulted in a jury verdict totaling $1,265,000:
  - $115,000 for past and future medical expenses
  - $900,000 for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) to Ms. Nestlehutt
  - $250,000 for Mr. Nestlehutt’s loss of consortium
- OCGA § 51-13-1 (enacted in 2005) capped noneconomic damages in medical-malpractice actions at $350,000, regardless of the number of providers or claims, and broadly defined noneconomic damages to include pain and suffering, disfigurement, and loss of consortium.
- The plaintiffs sought a ruling that the cap was unconstitutional; the trial court agreed and entered judgment for the full verdict amount.
- The defendant’s motion for new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether OCGA § 51-13-1’s mandatory cap on noneconomic damages in medical-malpractice actions violates the Georgia Constitution’s right to trial by jury.
2. Whether the cap also violates separation of powers and equal protection under the Georgia Constitution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court.
- The court held that OCGA § 51-13-1’s noneconomic-damages cap is unconstitutional because it violates the Georgia constitutional right to trial by jury.
- Because the jury-trial ruling resolved the case, the court did not reach the separation-of-powers or equal-protection challenges.
- The plaintiffs’ judgment remained in the full amount of the jury’s verdict, without statutory reduction.

## Legal Principles

- The Georgia constitutional guarantee that the right to trial by jury “shall remain inviolate” preserves the jury’s historical fact-finding role as it existed at common law when the relevant constitutional provision was adopted.
- In tort actions historically tried to juries, determining the amount of damages, including noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering and disfigurement), is a factual question for the jury.
- A statute requiring courts to reduce a jury’s noneconomic-damages award to a fixed maximum, without case-specific review, impermissibly nullifies the jury’s factual determination and infringes the jury-trial right.
- Across-the-board legislative reduction of verdicts differs from individualized judicial mechanisms (e.g., new trial or remittitur) that operate through case-specific judicial review rather than automatic substitution of a predetermined figure.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court held that a statutory cap mandating reduction of noneconomic damages in medical-malpractice verdicts violates the state constitutional right to trial by jury because it displaces the jury’s determination of damages in a historically jury-triable cause of action.


Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 286 Ga. 731, 691 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 2010)