ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) — Georgia’s Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in two closely watched cases that could fundamentally change how much families can recover when a loved one dies as a result of medical malpractice.

At the center of the debate is whether the state can impose a $350,000 cap on damages in wrongful death medical malpractice cases — even when a jury determines a much higher amount is warranted. The cases are considered “bellwether” rulings, with the potential to reshape civil litigation and medical malpractice law across Georgia.

The court’s decision could revive a damages cap first enacted by the Georgia General Assembly in 2005 as part of a broader tort reform package aimed at limiting large jury verdicts. That cap has faced repeated constitutional challenges over the years, particularly over whether it violates the right to a jury trial guaranteed under Georgia law.

The cases, which are part of a broader push to revisit the 2010 Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery P.C. v. Nestlehutt decision that initially struck down the caps, are:

• S26A0349: Clark et al. v. Leigh et al.
• S26X0350: Leigh et al. v. Clark et al.

The Georgia Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of July.

After arguments unfolded inside the courtroom, families who say they lost loved ones due to medical negligence gathered outside the court, urging justices not to place a fixed dollar value on human life.

“His life is valued. We miss him every single day,” said Glenda Yarbrough, whose husband Ron died in 2019 following what was supposed to be a routine colon surgery.

Yarbrough said doctors cleared her husband for surgery after reporting he was in good heart health — a claim that she said turned out to be inaccurate. Ron Yarbrough, 64, went into heart failure and died as a result of the procedure.

In July, a jury awarded the Yarbrough family $18.3 million in a medical malpractice verdict.

“The Ron Yarbrough verdict is a reminder of why the constitutional right to trial by jury matters,” Lloyd Bell, attorney for the family, said in a statement.

Bell’s statement continues: “Juries are how the public sets the standard of care and holds powerful institutions accountable when lives are at stake. When citizens hear the evidence and render a verdict, they are not being emotional or arbitrary — they are performing the exact role our system assigns them. Efforts to impose caps on wrongful death cases ask courts to substitute legislative limits for community judgment. This case shows why that is dangerous: when critical medical facts are ignored, a jury is often the only safeguard ensuring honesty, accountability, and the patient’s right to make informed, life-saving decisions.”

That $18.3 million award, however, could be significantly reduced if the Supreme Court determines that judges may cap jury verdicts at $350,000.

“To find out that even though a jury awards a certain amount, there’s a possibility it could be capped at $350,000 — that’s protecting the doctor and the insurance companies,” Yarbrough said.

The two cases before the court challenge whether lawmakers can override jury decisions by imposing statutory limits on damages. Attorneys opposing the cap argued that doing so strips juries of their traditional role as fact-finders and undermines the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

During oral arguments, justices questioned whether a legislatively imposed cap improperly overrides jury verdicts and whether such limits are compatible with Georgia’s constitution.

“The jury has decided an amount of damages, and then after trial the judge says, ‘No’. I don’t understand how that doesn’t infringe on the jury’s traditional role,” questioned Justice Andrew Pinson during Tuesday’s proceedings.

Supporters of the cap, including medical and insurance industry groups, argue that limits on damages are necessary to prevent unpredictable and excessively large verdicts. They say caps help stabilize malpractice insurance costs, encourage doctors to continue practicing in Georgia, and protect access to care — particularly in rural communities and high-risk specialties.

Opponents counter that caps disproportionately harm families in wrongful death cases, especially when the victim is a child, retiree, or someone without significant lost wages — situations where economic damages are low but emotional loss is profound.

Among those rallying outside the court was Shannon McGuffie, whose daughter Halo Skye McGuffie died when McGuffie was 20 weeks pregnant. McGuffie said medical malpractice caused her daughter’s death and believes damage caps prevent meaningful accountability.

“My daughter cannot be replaced,” McGuffie said. “You cannot put a cap on a human life or human potential. Halo matters. Her life matters.”

Other families echoed similar concerns, holding signs and speaking out against what they see as an unjust limitation on justice.

“How is that fair?” said McGuffie. “Which one of you has a child that’s worth $350,000?”

The court’s ruling could have wide-ranging consequences, particularly in cases where juries award damages in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Families who attended the hearing said they are hoping the Supreme Court reaffirms the fundamental role of juries in civil cases.

“All of these families are here hoping and praying that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the right to a jury trial,” said Bell. “So that their suffering and the loss of a loved one will mean something.”

Copyright 2026 WANF. All rights reserved.