Narrative Opinion Summary
In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff sought damages from a hospital authority that had already conceded liability, leading to a jury trial exclusively on the issue of damages for pain and suffering. Following an unfavorable verdict, the hospital appealed, contending that the trial court erred by not providing a jury instruction on impeachment due to a prior inconsistent statement made by the plaintiff. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the necessity of a written request for such jury instructions and finding no substantive evidence of the alleged contradictory statement. Concurrently, the plaintiff sought damages under OCGA § 5-6-6, arguing that the appeal was intended to delay proceedings. The court rejected this claim, not finding the appeal sufficiently frivolous to warrant sanctions, thereby affirming the lower court's decision without imposing penalties for delay. The decision, rendered by Judge Sognier with the concurrence of Chief Judge Banke and Presiding Judge Birdsong, upheld the jury's award of damages to the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Addressed
Damages for Frivolous Appeal under OCGA § 5-6-6subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to award damages for delay under OCGA § 5-6-6, determining that the appeal, while lacking merit, was not frivolous.
Reasoning: While the court found no merit in the Medical Center's arguments, it did not deem the appeal frivolous enough to warrant penalties for delay.
Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that the plaintiff had made contradictory statements, justifying the refusal to instruct the jury on impeachment.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that Miller had contradicted herself as claimed, thus further justifying the refusal to give the impeachment charge.
Jury Instructions and Written Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that a party must submit a written request to preserve an error regarding jury instructions on impeachment.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the failure to provide a written request negated any claim of error, citing precedent that a written request is necessary for such charges.