ROCKDALE HOSPITAL, LLC v. EVANS (Two Cases), 306 Ga. 847

Janice Evans presented to Rockdale Hospital ER on Jan 16, 2012 with severe headache, vomiting, and extremely high blood pressure; nursing staff failed to document her headache onset and used a digestive-illness charting template.
She was diagnosed with hypertension, treated, and discharged; within a week she was returned to the ER with neurologic signs and later found to have a ruptured brain aneurysm causing catastrophic, permanent disabilities.
Plaintiffs sued Rockdale for medical malpractice; a jury awarded past medical expenses ($1,196,288.97) and loss of consortium, but awarded zero for past/future pain and suffering and zero for lost wages; jury apportioned fault 51% Rockdale, 49% Evans.
Trial court reduced awards per comparative fault and denied plaintiffs’ motion for additur or new trial limited to damages; plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, ordering a full retrial, finding the zero pain-and-suffering award clearly inadequate under a preponderance standard.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper standard of appellate review under OCGA § 51-12-12 and whether the Court of Appeals applied it correctly; the Court held the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard, vacated the judgment, and remanded for application of the correct standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for appellate review of trial-court rulings under OCGA § 51-12-12	Appellate courts may review whether a jury award is consistent with the preponderance of the evidence	Appellate review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on additur/new-trial motions	Appellate courts must review only for abuse of discretion; trial court—not appellate court—decides if award is within range authorized by a preponderance of evidence
Whether Court of Appeals correctly applied the standard to order retrial	The zero award for past pain and suffering was clearly inadequate under the preponderance of the evidence	The Court of Appeals substituted its judgment for the trial court and applied the wrong standard	Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard; its decision was vacated and the case remanded to apply abuse-of-discretion review
Proper scope of retrial (damages only vs. entire case)	Plaintiffs: retrial should be limited to damages/additur	Defendant: comparative fault requires retrial on liability too	Supreme Court declined to decide; remanded to lower court to apply correct standard before reaching scope question

Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217 (Ga. 1998) (OCGA § 51-12-12 gives trial court discretion to set aside verdicts that are clearly excessive or inadequate and creates presumption of correctness for approved verdicts)
Lisle v. Willis, 265 Ga. 861 (Ga. 1995) (appellate review of trial-court rulings on new-trial motions is limited to abuse-of-discretion)
Robinson v. Star Gas of Hawkinsville, 269 Ga. 102 (Ga. 1998) (case suggesting appellate review for preponderance; disapproved in part by this opinion)
Anthony v. Gator Cochran Constr., 288 Ga. 79 (Ga. 2010) (a contradictory or repugnant verdict is void and requires a new trial)
White v. State, 293 Ga. 523 (Ga. 2013) (failure of trial court to apply correct standard indicates it did not exercise discretion and is error)
Evans v. Rockdale Hospital, LLC, 345 Ga. App. 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals decision reversing trial court and ordering full retrial; reviewed and vacated in part by Georgia Supreme Court)
Smith v. Miliken, 247 Ga. 369 (Ga. 1981) (appellate courts may intervene when a verdict is so irrational as to indicate bias, prejudice, or corruption)