Sobowale v. Smith et al.

Facts

In 2016, Patricia Edwards was admitted to Coastal Manor, a nursing facility operated by Liberty Regional Medical Center in Liberty County. Dr. Adewunmi Sobowale, Sr., served as the facility’s medical director, while Dr. Calin Badea provided care in his absence. Both physicians resided in Bryan County.

During her residency at Coastal Manor, Edwards developed pressure sores that became infected. In early 2019, while Dr. Sobowale was away and Dr. Badea was overseeing patient care, Edwards developed sepsis and was hospitalized. She died shortly thereafter from the infection.

Edwards’ daughter, Rebecca Edwards Smith, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the State Court of Liberty County against Coastal Manor, its administrator, and Drs. Sobowale and Badea, alleging negligence, violations of the patient’s bill of rights, and breach of contract. Smith ultimately reached a settlement with Coastal Manor, in which she agreed to release all claims against the facility, its administrator, and its non-physician staff in exchange for a confidential monetary payment. However, the settlement agreement stipulated that Coastal Manor would remain a named defendant in the case to preserve venue in Liberty County, despite the dismissal of all claims against it. The trial court entered a consent judgment reflecting this agreement.

Dr. Sobowale subsequently moved to transfer venue and to compel disclosure of the settlement agreement, arguing that the settlement effectively eliminated any basis for venue in Liberty County. The trial court denied both motions, finding no evidence of collusion to manipulate venue and concluding that the consent judgment was supported by sufficient consideration.

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in Smith’s favor, awarding $4.25 million in damages. The jury apportioned 35% fault to Dr. Sobowale, 5% to Dr. Badea, and 60% to Coastal Manor. Dr. Sobowale appealed, challenging both the trial court’s denial of his venue transfer motion and its decision to seal the settlement agreement.

Issues & Holdings

1. Did the trial court err in denying Dr. Sobowale’s motion to transfer venue after Coastal Manor settled?

Holding: No. The court found that Coastal Manor remained a named defendant under a valid consent judgment, and absent evidence of collusion, venue in Liberty County was proper.

2. Did the trial court err in sealing the settlement agreement and denying Dr. Sobowale access to it?

Holding: The court declined to reach this issue, finding the appeal procedurally improper.

Reasoning

1. Venue in Liberty County

Georgia law provides that venue in a case involving multiple defendants is proper in any county where at least one defendant resides. However, under OCGA § 9-10-31(d), if all resident defendants are dismissed before or at trial, a nonresident defendant may request transfer to a proper venue. This “vanishing venue” rule ensures that venue is not artificially maintained when no local defendant remains liable.

Dr. Sobowale argued that the settlement with Coastal Manor functionally eliminated its liability and that the consent judgment was a collusive attempt to preserve venue in Liberty County. He urged the court to overturn Hankook Tire Co. v. White, 335 Ga. App. 453 (2016), which held that consent judgments preserving venue are not inherently collusive.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the consent judgment explicitly stated it was not a discharge of liability under OCGA § 9-10-31(d). The trial court reviewed the settlement agreement in camera and determined that there was no collusion and that the agreement included a substantial monetary payment. Because a legitimate judgment was entered against Coastal Manor, venue remained proper in Liberty County under established precedent, including Motor Convoy v. Brannen, 194 Ga. App. 795 (1990), and Nalley v. Baldwin, 261 Ga. App. 713 (2003).

Further, the court emphasized that Georgia courts have consistently held that venue does not vanish when a consent judgment imposes real liability on a local defendant. The Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled that only clear evidence of collusion—defined as an agreement to manipulate legal procedures in bad faith—can override this principle. Here, no such evidence existed.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the venue transfer motion.

2. Sealing of the Settlement Agreement

Dr. Sobowale also challenged the trial court’s decision to seal the settlement agreement, arguing that he was entitled to review it to support his collusion claim. The court declined to reach the merits of this argument for procedural reasons.

First, the court noted that motions for reconsideration are not directly appealable and do not extend the time for filing an appeal. Because Dr. Sobowale’s renewed notice of appeal was filed more than a year after the trial court’s judgment, it was untimely.

Second, the trial court never expressly ruled on the motion to compel disclosure of the settlement before the initial appeal. Under Stanley v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 344 Ga. App. 342 (2018), an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not ruled upon below. Even if the court construed the trial judge’s decision to seal the settlement as an implicit denial of disclosure, any appeal of that ruling would require an interlocutory appeal under In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 269 Ga. 589 (1998). Because no such application was filed, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue.

Thus, the trial court’s decision to seal the settlement agreement remained undisturbed.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Venue in Liberty County was proper under Georgia law, as the consent judgment against Coastal Manor imposed legitimate liability and was not collusive. The challenge to the sealing of the settlement agreement was procedurally improper and therefore not considered on appeal.

Citation: Sobowale v. Smith et al., No. A24A0694 (Ga. Ct. App. August 28, 2024)