In a Georgia medical malpractice case involving the alleged medical negligence in implanting a spinal cord stimulator in a patient, the trial court instructed the jury after closing arguments: “In assessing the damages of the Plaintiff, the presence or absence of any insurance or other benefits of any type, for either the Plaintiff or the Defendants, as well as the financial circumstances of any person listed on the verdict form, shall not be considered by you in deciding the issue of liability or damages. The existence or lack of insurance or benefits shall not enter into your discussions or deliberations in any way in deciding the issues in this case. You must instead decide this case solely on the basis of the testimony and evidence presented in the courtroom, as well as the other instructions given to you by the Court.”
The Georgia medical malpractice jury returned a verdict in favor of the palintiff for $4.5 million, and the defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in giving the anti-collateral source charge because no evidence supported it.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held in its June 17, 2024 decision: “It is not reversible error for a trial court “to give the jury a cautionary charge couched in appropriate language” … It is a fixed rule that the determination of whether a cautionary instruction is to be given generally addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge … a trial court may give proper cautionary instructions to eradicate the adverse effect of placing the issue of collateral sources before the jury.”
The Court of Appeals of Georgia stated: “It was within the trial court’s discretion to give the anti-collateral source charge because of the juror’s comment which squarely placed before the other potential jurors the issue of medical malpractice insurance.”
“Lawhorne also challenges the content of the instruction. He argues that the instruction improperly connected insurance to liability for the first time during the trial. We disagree. “The prejudice [from references to collateral sources] lies in the infectious nature of collateral source evidence, contaminating as it does the issue of loss with the issues of injury and liability. Such evidence is prejudicial because by its nature [its] effect is not self-limiting, but it laps over into other considerations.””
“Lawhorne seems to argue that the trial court erred because, regardless of whether or not circumstances existed to support the charge to disregard insurance, the trial court did not rely on those circumstances and instead gave the instruction in an effort to preempt the jury from asking about insurance. Regardless of the trial court’s reason for giving the cautionary instruction, we affirm under the right-for-any-reason rule.”
Source Lawhorne v. Douglas, A24A0556.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Georgia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Georgia medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
