Geary v. Estate of Tapley

Facts

This case arose from a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Larose Tapley, individually and as executor of her late husband James Tapley’s estate, against Dr. Brian Geary and Urology Specialists of Georgia, P.C. 

On November 16, 2016, Dr. Geary performed prostate surgery on Tapley. During the procedure, Tapley’s bladder was perforated, leading to fluid leakage and abdominal swelling. Rather than repairing the perforation, Geary opted to drain the fluid, citing Tapley’s multiple comorbidities. Tapley’s condition worsened, and he died approximately 30 hours after surgery.

Tapley’s estate alleged that Geary was negligent in failing to perform a cystogram, an imaging procedure that could have identified the severity of the perforation, and in failing to repair the perforation during surgery. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the failure to identify and repair the perforation deviated from the applicable standard of care. 

The jury returned a $15 million verdict in favor of Tapley’s estate. Geary moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a new trial, and remittitur, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed, the damages were excessive, and the jury improperly considered pain and suffering damages without sufficient evidence of consciousness. The trial court denied these motions, and Geary appealed.

Issues & Holdings

1. Jury Instructions on Pain and Suffering

Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury that pain and suffering damages require evidence that Tapley was conscious of his imminent death?

Holding: No. The Court of Appeals found that the jury instruction was legally correct and sufficiently covered the issue.

2. Jury Instructions on Preexisting Conditions

Did the trial court improperly instruct the jury on the aggravation of preexisting conditions?

Holding: No. The Court of Appeals held that the instruction was supported by the evidence.

3. Excessiveness of the Verdict

Was the $15 million verdict so excessive as to suggest jury bias, prejudice, or mistake?

Holding: No. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the award.

Reasoning

Jury Instructions on Pain and Suffering

Geary argued that the jury should have been instructed that damages for pre-death pain and suffering require evidence of consciousness and imminent awareness of death. He requested a specific charge stating that pain and suffering damages should not be awarded unless there was evidence that Tapley was aware of his imminent death. Geary argued the charge was appropriate because there was evidence that Tapley remained unconscious after the procedure until his death.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that consciousness of imminent death is only a requirement in pre-impact pain and suffering cases, such as wrongful death from sudden events where the deceased was not aware they were going to die.. Because Tapley survived for over 30 hours after surgery, the standard jury instruction on pain and suffering was sufficient. The court cited Beam v. Kingsley, 255 Ga. App. 715 (2002), which upheld pain and suffering damages despite the decedent dying minutes after sustaining an injury.

Jury Instructions on Preexisting Conditions

Geary also challenged the trial court’s instruction that a defendant is liable for aggravating a plaintiff’s preexisting condition, arguing that this case did not involve an aggravation. The Court of Appeals found that the instruction was appropriate.

First, the negligence here was not in perforating the bladder; it was in failing to repair it. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ case supported the theory that the perforation was a pre-existing condition that was aggravated in failing to repair it.

Second, the portion of the charge stating that Geary took Tapley as he found was appropriate because Tapley had significant comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, severe emphysema, heart disease, COPD, and a pacemaker. The jury instruction correctly stated that a defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them under the “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine. The court relied on AT Systems Southeast v. Carnes, which held that a defendant is liable for worsening a plaintiff’s preexisting condition, even if the plaintiff was already vulnerable.

Excessiveness of the Verdict

Geary argued that the $15 million award was excessive given Tapley’s age and preexisting conditions and that the jury was improperly influenced by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s closing argument, which referenced salaries of CEOs and athletes. The Court of Appeals applied the standard from Rockdale Hosp. v. Evans, 306 Ga. 847 (2019), which states that a jury’s damages award should not be disturbed unless it is irrational or the product of bias, prejudice, or corruption. 

The court held that the $2.5 million pain and suffering award was within the jury’s discretion because there was some evidence that Tapley experienced pain before becoming unresponsive. The $12.5 million wrongful death award was also deemed reasonable based on Tapley’s life expectancy and the jury’s determination of his loss of enjoyment of life. 

Regarding the arguments about Plaintiffs’ closing argument, the Court of Appeals rejected it because Geary failed to object during closing argument. The Court further concluded that to the extent it could consider Geary’s argument on this issue, it would still be rejected because the evidence did not support a conclusion that the jury’s verdict was the result of bias, prejudice or mistake, and the verdict was not so excessive as to be irrational.

Conclusion

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the $15 million jury verdict. This ruling reinforces three key principles in medical malpractice and wrongful death cases: 

1. Pain and suffering damages do not require evidence of imminent awareness of death when the decedent survives for some time after the alleged negligence.
2. A defendant is liable for aggravating a preexisting condition when supported by medical evidence.
3. Jury verdicts are presumed valid unless they are so excessive as to be irrational or influenced by improper factors. 

The case highlights the importance of properly tailoring jury instructions and preserving objections at trial, as well as the deference appellate courts give to trial courts in evaluating excessive verdict claims.

Citation: Geary v. Estate of Tapley, No. A24A0978 (Ga. Ct. App. October 25, 2024)