The Georgia Supreme Court on March 22, 2010 unanimously struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. Prior to this ruling, Georgia had a $350,000 on noneconomic damages. The state's high court ruled that the cap violates the plaintiff's right to a jury trial, which is guaranteed under Georgia's Constitution. According to a news report in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the court upheld a $1.2 million jury award to 75-year-old real estate agent Betty Nestlehutt, who was the victim of a botched cosmetic surgery. The surgery apparently caused serious personal injuries. It left her disfigured, with gaping wounds and required her to undergo painful, prolonged treatments to prevent infection.

A Ruling of Great Significance

This ruling is a landmark decision in Georgia and extremely good news for victims of medical malpractice in Georgia. In fact, given a similar court decision in Illinois recently, one might be inclined to believe that the tide is turning in favor of wrongfully injured patients. However, this Georgia ruling does not apply to California. In fact, Californians are a long way from having equal rights when it comes to the issue of medical malpractice compensation. The Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) of which my partner Brian Chase is a vice-president, is fighting hard for the rights of patients who have been neglected or wronged by doctors, hospitals or other medical professionals.

Justice for Californians

The attorneys of CAOC are basically challenging the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA), which was enacted in California to provide affordable medical malpractice insurance for physicians. MICRA limits jury awards in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 for pain and suffering, even for those who have suffered catastrophic injuries, and allows awards of $50,000 or more for future medical expenses and wage loss to be paid at regular intervals over the life of an injured plaintiff.

While $250,000 may sound like a lot of money to the average American, remember that these are plaintiffs who have often suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of medical negligence. These are personal injuries you cannot put a cap on. MICRA is unconstitutional because it denies the common man access to the courts and access to justice. Our civil justice system is the last resort for these plaintiffs and often, the only recourse to obtain any justice. The California personal injury lawyers at BISNAR | CHASE wholeheartedly support CAOC's efforts to get rid of these unfair medical malpractice caps.