The Supreme Court of Georgia denied a petition for certiorari in a medical malpractice case in which the Petitioner argued that the trial court was required to instruct the jury on how to evaluate testimony about a medical expert’s personal practices as part of the jury’s overall assessment of the applicable standard of care and any breach thereof. The trial court had rejected the Petitioner’s requested charge on that point, and the Court of Appeals concluded that any error was harmless.
The Georgia Supreme Court stated on February 3, 2026 that OCGA § 24-9-67.1 — now codified at OCGA § 24-7-702(c) — provides that evidence regarding an expert witness’s personal practices, unless subject to exclusion on other evidentiary grounds, is admissible both as substantive evidence and to impeach the expert’s opinion regarding the applicable standard of care: “As Condra addressed only the narrow question of the admissibility of personal-practices testimony in the medical malpractice context, its discussion about using jury instructions to head off potential juror confusion is not necessary to its result. Our reflection on jury instructions thus was not a holding. The Petitioner’s alternate reading — that Condra requires such an instruction or suggests that refusing such an instruction is error —
is disjointed from the narrow issue we actually addressed.”
“While the Petitioner is wrong to think that Condra mandates such an instruction, that does not mean trial courts should not be open to deviating from the pattern jury instructions, where appropriate … pattern jury instructions are not the law — they are not written by the General Assembly — nor are they an authoritative interpretation of the law — this Court neither reviews nor approves them. Rather, they represent the commendable efforts of the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia to establish best practices in charging juries, consistent with the Council’s understanding of the law and precedent that binds Georgia’s trial courts. Indeed, use of a pattern charge does not necessarily preclude a finding of error … In short, whether a requested jury charge is a pattern charge or a deviation therefrom cannot alone be a legitimate reason to grant or deny an otherwise appropriate charge. In the preparation of jury instructions, the suggested pattern instructions are most often a good place to start, though they may not be the end of the matter.”
“So charging the jury with the requisite care and skill may necessitate modifying a pattern charge or even fashioning a
specially tailored charge to better align with the evidence or legal issues in the case … Here, for example, the trial court might have permissibly instructed the jury about whether and how an expert’s testimony about his personal practices was relevant to determining the applicable standard of care and whether that standard was met or breached in this case. Of course, that is not to say the trial court had to give such an instruction, only that it could be warranted in similar circumstances and that trial judges should consider those circumstances accordingly.”
Source S25C1409. Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons, P.C. v. Keel
If you or a loved one suffered harm (or worse) from medical negligence in Georgia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Georgia medical malpractice attorney, or a malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice claim, 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 lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
