Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Myers, 295 Ga. 843

Background

On June 28, 2010, Kimberly Myers injured her left ankle (fracture and torn tendons) after stepping in a pothole on Dalton State College property; she received emergency care and ongoing treatment.
On October 11, 2010, Myers sent an ante litem Notice of Claim under OCGA § 50-21-26 to DOAS and the Board of Regents stating the injury and that “the amount of Ms. Myers['] loss is yet to be determined” because she was still incurring medical bills.
DOAS requested medical bills and wage-verification; Myers later served a $110,000 demand (April 2012) and DOAS offered $10,128.24; Myers sued June 20, 2012.
The Board moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the GTCA notice requirement to state “the amount of the loss claimed”; the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity not waived).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the October 2010 notice was sufficient because Myers could not reasonably quantify her full loss then; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals: Myers’ notice failed strict compliance because it stated no amount of loss at all despite having incurred medical expenses by the time of notice (exhibit showed $4,180.64 incurred as of the notice date). A dissent argued the notice was adequate under the circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ante litem notice must state an amount when some losses are already known	Myers: statute requires stating the amount of the loss claimed "to the extent of knowledge and belief"; she properly stated that amount was undetermined while still incurring bills	Board: notice must state an amount of loss; failure to state any amount violates OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) and preserves sovereign immunity	Held: Notice must state some amount of loss practicable under the circumstances; Myers’ notice was deficient because it gave no amount despite known medical expenses
Whether strict compliance requires a hyper-technical amount or only a general statement of magnitude	Myers: GTCA requires statement of amount of loss, not a snapshot; general description suffices when full extent unknown	Board: statute requires at least the amount reasonably known at notice time	Held: Strict compliance required but not hyper-technical; still requires the claimant to provide amounts she knows or can practicably provide (e.g., medical bills incurred)
Whether an ante litem amount binds claimant later in litigation	Myers: ante litem notice is not a binding cap; it merely gives State notice of magnitude	Board: N/A as primary contention was failure to state amount	Held: Notice is not a binding cap on recovery, but must reflect the magnitude of the claim as known/believed at notice time
Whether failure to strictly comply deprives the trial court of jurisdiction	Myers: substantial compliance should suffice if State received adequate notice to investigate/settle	Board: failure to strictly comply means sovereign immunity not waived and court lacks jurisdiction	Held: Strict compliance is required; failure to comply means no waiver of sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Cummings v. Ga. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (ante litem strict-compliance rule; purpose is to give State adequate notice)
Williams v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 (GTCA ante litem strict compliance requires statutory elements)
Norris v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 268 Ga. 192 (GTCA balances sovereign immunity and limited waiver)
Perdue v. Athens Technical College, 283 Ga. App. 404 (notice stating only general claim insufficient where claimant knew amounts)
Myers v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 324 Ga. App. 685 (Court of Appeals opinion holding Myers’ notice sufficient; reversed)
Driscoll v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 326 Ga. App. 315 (discussion that ante litem notice need not state entire or total loss but must state amount claimed as practicable)