Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Two Tort Reform Measures
A divided Georgia Supreme Court has upheld a 2005 tort reform provision that makes it more difficult to win damages for alleged malpractice during emergency room visits.
The 4-3 decision (PDF) issued today upheld a requirement that malpractice plaintiffs must show “clear and convincing evidence” that the emergency room committed “gross negligence,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the newspaper’s Political Insider blog.
In a separate 5-2 decision (PDF), the state supreme court upheld an “offer of settlement” provision of the tort reform law in a defamation suit against former Atlanta Falcon defensive end Chuck Smith, the Journal-Constitution reports.
In the emergency room case, the court ruled against a plaintiff who was left paralyzed from a brain hemorrhage that wasn’t diagnosed until two days after her ER visit. Carol Gliemmo had told emergency doctors of a “snapping in her head,” according to the Political Insider. She was treated for high blood pressure and sent home.
In the offer of settlement case, Smith and a radio station had offered to settle the defamation suit for $5,000, but got no response, according to the opinion. They later won on summary judgment and sought attorney fees.
The offer of settlement provision says a defendant may collect attorney fees incurred after a rejected settlement offer, if the defendant wins the case or if the judgment is less than 75 percent of the settlement offer.
Similarly, plaintiffs may collect attorney fees incurred after a rejected settlement offer, if they win the case or the judgment is greater than 125 percent of the settlement offer.
The opinion said the purpose of the provision is to encourage tort litigants to make and accept good faith settlement offers and to avoid unnecessary litigation. The purpose is legitimate, the decision said, and the fact that the law applies to tort cases only does not make it unconstitutional.
