When a medical malpractice trial concludes with a verdict or judgment that one party believes was affected by legal error, the appellate process provides a mechanism for review. Appeals in Georgia medical malpractice cases are governed by the same appellate procedure doctrines that apply to civil litigation generally, but the complexity of malpractice trials, with their reliance on expert testimony, specialized jury instructions, and technical evidentiary rulings, produces a distinct set of issues that recur on appeal. The appellate court does not retry the case, hear new evidence, or substitute its judgment for the jury’s findings of fact. Its function is to determine whether the trial court committed errors of law that affected the outcome. Trial-stage evidence analysis and expert witness strategy are distinct subjects addressed elsewhere.
Categories of Errors That Can Be Raised on Appeal
The appellant, meaning the party challenging the trial court’s result, must identify specific errors in the trial proceedings that form the basis of the appeal. In Georgia medical malpractice cases, several categories of error recur with particular frequency.
Jury instruction errors arise when the trial court gives the jury an incorrect statement of the law, omits an instruction that should have been given, or includes an instruction that was inapplicable to the facts of the case. In malpractice litigation, jury instructions on the standard of care, causation, comparative negligence, and the burden of proof are all subjects where the precise wording can affect how the jury analyzes the evidence. An instruction that misstates the applicable standard, for example by applying the ordinary negligence threshold to an emergency department claim that should have been evaluated under the gross negligence standard, may constitute reversible error if it affected the jury’s deliberations.
Evidentiary rulings are another common source of appellate issues. The trial court makes numerous decisions during the course of a malpractice trial about what evidence the jury may hear and what evidence must be excluded. These rulings include decisions about the admissibility of expert testimony, the admission or exclusion of medical records or portions thereof, the treatment of prior bad acts or prior malpractice claims, and the handling of discovery disputes that affected the evidence available at trial. When a party believes that an evidentiary ruling improperly admitted prejudicial evidence or improperly excluded relevant evidence, that ruling may be challenged on appeal.
Expert qualification decisions are a subset of evidentiary rulings with particular significance in the malpractice context. Because expert testimony is essential to establishing both the standard of care and the breach of that standard, a trial court’s decision to qualify or disqualify an expert can be outcome-determinative. An appeal may challenge the trial court’s determination that an expert met (or failed to meet) the statutory qualification requirements under Georgia’s evidence code, or that the expert’s methodology satisfied (or failed to satisfy) the reliability standards the law requires.
Motions practice rulings, including decisions on motions for directed verdict, motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and motions for new trial, may also be raised on appeal. These motions test whether the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. A trial court’s denial of a directed verdict motion, for instance, may be appealed on the ground that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it reached based on the evidence in the record.
Standard of Review Concept
Not all errors receive the same level of scrutiny on appeal. The standard of review determines how much deference the appellate court gives to the trial court’s decision, and it varies depending on the type of decision being challenged.
Questions of law are reviewed de novo, meaning the appellate court examines the legal issue independently, without deference to the trial court’s conclusion. If the trial court misinterpreted a statute, applied the wrong legal standard, or made an error in its legal analysis, the appellate court evaluates the question from the beginning and reaches its own conclusion. Jury instruction challenges frequently involve questions of law subject to de novo review, because the content of a jury instruction is a legal determination about what the law requires.
Discretionary decisions by the trial court are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. This standard is highly deferential: the appellate court will not reverse the trial court’s ruling simply because it would have reached a different conclusion. It will reverse only if the trial court’s decision was so unreasonable, arbitrary, or unsupported by the evidence that it constitutes a manifest abuse of the discretion the law entrusts to the trial judge. Evidentiary rulings, including decisions about expert witness qualification and the admission or exclusion of specific evidence, are typically reviewed under this standard.
Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which asks whether the trial court’s findings are supported by any evidence in the record. This standard reflects the principle that the factfinder (whether judge or jury) occupies a superior position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, because the factfinder observed the testimony firsthand. An appellate court will not disturb factual findings unless they are unsupported by the record or clearly wrong.
Preservation of Error Requirement
A fundamental principle of appellate practice is that an issue generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The party seeking to challenge a trial court ruling must have raised the issue in the trial court at the time the ruling was made, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct the error before it becomes the basis for an appeal. This requirement is known as preservation of error.
In practical terms, preservation requires that the party objected to the ruling at trial, stated the grounds for the objection with sufficient specificity, and obtained a ruling from the trial court on the objection. A party who fails to object to a jury instruction before the jury retires to deliberate, or who fails to object to an evidentiary ruling at the time it is made, may be deemed to have waived the right to challenge that ruling on appeal.
The preservation requirement serves several purposes. It ensures that the trial court has an opportunity to correct errors in real time, potentially avoiding the need for an appeal altogether. It prevents parties from strategically withholding objections at trial in the hope of creating appellate issues from errors they could have prevented. And it ensures that the appellate record contains the context necessary for the appellate court to evaluate the issue.
Georgia does recognize a narrow exception for plain error, which allows an appellate court to consider errors that were not preserved at trial if the error is so significant that it substantially affects the rights of the parties and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. The plain error standard is applied sparingly and is not a substitute for timely objection at trial. It exists as a safety valve for extraordinary circumstances, not as a routine alternative to proper preservation.
Consider a scenario where a medical malpractice case goes to trial and the jury returns a verdict for the defense. During the trial, the court instructed the jury on the applicable standard of care. The plaintiff’s attorney believes the instruction misstated the law by omitting a material element of the applicable standard. If the plaintiff’s attorney objected to the instruction before the jury began deliberations and the trial court overruled the objection, the issue is preserved for appeal. The appellate court would review the instruction de novo to determine whether it accurately stated the law. If, however, the attorney did not object to the instruction at the time it was given, the issue may be deemed waived, and the appellant would need to demonstrate plain error to obtain appellate review.
Verify current status of all statutes, rules, and judicial holdings at time of publication; legislative or judicial changes may have occurred.
Disclaimer
This content is produced exclusively for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to specific facts and circumstances.
No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this content without first seeking qualified legal advice from a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Medical malpractice law involves complex, fact-intensive analysis that varies significantly depending on the specific clinical context, the parties involved, the applicable procedural rules, and the current state of statutory and case law at the time of the claim.
The statutes, rules, judicial holdings, and legal principles referenced in this content reflect the law as understood at the time of writing. Georgia law is subject to legislative amendment, judicial reinterpretation, and regulatory change at any time. Specific provisions discussed herein, including but not limited to damage cap rulings, tort reform legislation, statutes of limitation and repose, expert qualification standards, and procedural filing requirements, may have been modified, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication. Readers must independently verify the current status of all legal authorities cited before relying on any information contained in this content.
This content does not cover every aspect of Georgia medical malpractice law. Certain topics have been intentionally excluded from the scope of this publication, and the inclusion or omission of any particular subject should not be interpreted as a statement about its legal significance or relevance to any specific case.
The examples and scenarios presented throughout this content are hypothetical illustrations designed to clarify legal concepts. They do not represent actual cases, real parties, or guaranteed legal outcomes. The outcome of any medical malpractice claim depends on the unique facts of that case and the professional judgment of the attorneys and experts involved.
Nothing in this content should be construed as an opinion regarding the merits of any potential or pending claim, as a prediction of any legal outcome, or as an endorsement of any particular litigation strategy.