Thе Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors (“Board”) appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict which found the Visiting Nurse Health System of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc. (‘VNHS”) еxempt from ad valorem taxes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In the first appearance of this case before this court, we reversеd the grant of summary judgment to VNHS, concluding that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that VNHS qualified as a purely public charitable institution exempt from ad valorem taxes.
Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Visiting Nurse Health System &c.,
1. The Board argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for directed verdict, in failing to rule on its motion for directed verdict when it was made, and in failing to grant its motion for j.n.o.v. The Board presents no argument concerning the second ground, which we thus consider abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2).
2. The Board addresses both of its remaining enumerations together, arguing essentially that “insufficient” evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The standard for granting motions for directed verdict and for j.n.o.v. is the same.
Crump v. McDonald,
The issue presented to this jury was whether VNHS qualified fоr
*476
a tax exemption as an institution of “purely public charity” under OCGA § 48-5-41 (a) (4). In determining this issue, the jury considered three factors: (1) whether VNHS is an institution “devoted entirely to charitable pursuits”; (2) whether VNHS’s charitable pursuits are “for the benefit of the public”; and (3) whether the use of the property is “exclusively devoted to those charitable pursuits.”
York Rite Bodies of Freemasonry v. Bd. of Equalization,
(a) The Board first argues that VNHS “presented no new evidence” at trial, and that “[a]ll the evidence at trial was already pаrt of the record at the time Appellant previously appealed the grant of summary judgment.” Therefore, the Board contends, given VNHS’s “failure to рrovide the trial Court with any new evidence during the trial of this case, Appellee was not entitled to a verdict in its favor.” In our previous opinion, we rеversed a grant of summary judgment, not a verdict, and held that “[g]iven the dearth of evidence that VNHS qualifies as a purely public charity, issues of fact remain аs to whether it is exempt from ad valorem taxes.”
Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Visiting Nurse &c.,
supra,
(b) The Board next argues that insufficient evidence established that VNHS is an institution of purely рublic charity, because the majority of its patients pay for services through Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance. As we noted previously, “where thе primary purpose of the institution is to service those patients who do pay, then it cannot be said to be purely charitable.”
Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Visting Nurse &c.,
supra,
A review of the record establishes that VNHS presented some evidence that its primary purpose is charitable. Its president and CEO testified that the institution was foundеd in 1948 to provide home health service to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. When VNHS accepts a patient for care, that patient gets the care he needs regardless of whether he has a payor source or whether that source will cover all services needed. The institution uses funds from paying patients to further indigent care, along with donations and grants. While the majority of patients have some source of funds, *477 their nеeds often exceed those sources and they become what VNHS calls “uncompensated” patients. For example, blind diabetics can livе alone, but cannot see to fill their syringes with insulin, and insulin’s short shelf life means that syringes cannot be filled very far ahead of time. Medicaid will pay for 75 home visits per year, but that patient might require 250 visits per year. Therefore, VNHS visits 76 through 250 are not compensated. In another example, Medicaid pays only $100 of thе $200 cost of a dose of intravenous antibiotics, and only $4 for the supplies required to mix the solution and the courier fees to transport it.
The president further testified that the institution served 962 children in 2000 at a total cost of $1.2 million. Medicaid paid $500,000 for those services, and VNHS underwrote the additional $700,000 costs. Some years, VNHS gives away more in care than it has in revenue; the few times it has earned excess revenue, it has seen more patients, replacеd equipment, or begun new programs. For example, the institution created a children’s hospice with $50,000 excess revenue, which is now sustained through contributions and is the largest children’s hospice in the country. The only requirements to be eligible for services are that the patient (1) has a need for services; (2) is under a doctor’s orders, because nurses in Georgia cannot practice without an order; and (3) can be located in an environment that is safe for the health care provider. Ability to pay is not a criterion for eligibility.
As to whether VNHS is devoted entirely to charitable purposes, the faсt that some of its patients have payor sources is not dispositive.
Chatham County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Southside Communities Fire Protection,
The facts in
Annandale at Suwanne v. Gwinnett County Bd. оf Tax Assessors,
After reviewing the record, we hold that some evidence supports the jury’s сonclusion that VNHS’s primary purpose was charitable, *478 and thus the trial court did not err in denying the Board’s motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v.
Judgment affirmed.