Georgia Tort Reform FAQs

Georgia has historically been considered a moderate state for personal injury litigation — neither as plaintiff-friendly as California or Illinois, nor as defendant-friendly as Texas or Florida. SB 68 pushes Georgia further toward the defense-friendly end of the spectrum. For comparison, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) tracks tort reform legislation nationwide. Georgia’s changes are significant, but experienced plaintiff’s attorneys know how to work within the new framework to achieve outstanding results.

SB 68 does not impose a hard dollar cap on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages in most personal injury and wrongful death cases, unlike some other states. However, the law changes how juries evaluate and calculate these damages through modifications to jury instructions and evidence rules. Haug Barron Law Group’s trial attorneys are trained in next-generation damages presentation strategies to ensure juries fully appreciate the impact of your injuries.

SB 68 generally applies to tort cases filed after its effective date. The scope of what changed depends on the specific type of case. Wrongful death cases, medical malpractice cases, trucking cases, and premises liability cases are all affected to varying degrees. The key point is that experienced legal representation is more critical than ever. An attorney who does not understand SB 68 may inadvertently undervalue your claim or fail to preserve arguments against the new law’s application.

That is the central legal question being debated right now. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and civil rights advocates argue that SB 68’s restrictions on medical damages evidence violate the Georgia Constitution’s guarantee of the right to jury trial and the right to full civil remedies. Constitutional challenges are expected to be filed and litigated in the Georgia Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court of Georgia. Haug Barron Law Group will be at the forefront of this litigation.

SB 68 has significant implications for medical malpractice cases. The new rules on medical expense evidence directly affect cases where victims had extensive hospital care. Additionally, the bill modifies certain procedural requirements for presenting expert testimony in malpractice cases. James R. Haug has won multiple million-dollar medical malpractice verdicts and understands how to structure cases for maximum recovery under the new law.

Yes, but the effect is more muted in trucking cases where injuries are so catastrophic that medical expense caps make less of a relative difference. The bigger concern is the new law’s provisions relating to litigation procedures and bifurcation of certain evidence. Haug Barron Law Group is a member of the AAJ Trucking Litigation Group and is on the cutting edge of strategies to maximize trucking accident recoveries under SB 68.

Yes. Georgia law allows full recovery of future medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be needed as a result of the injury. This requires expert testimony from treating physicians, life care planners, and in major cases, economic experts who can calculate the present value of future care. SB 68 does not eliminate future medical damages — it primarily affects how historical billed amounts are presented. Your right to future care remains a full element of recovery.

SB 68’s most significant effect on catastrophic injury claims is the limitation on evidence of medical expenses. When a victim has $3 million in lifetime care needs, but the insurer argues only $800,000 was “accepted” by a provider, the new law restricts what the jury sees. This underscores the critical importance of hiring a firm like Haug Barron Law Group — one with the resources to retain the nation’s leading medical economists, life care planners, and expert witnesses to fully document every aspect of your damages before trial.

Yes. SB 68 changes how medical damages and certain other economic losses are presented to juries in wrongful death cases. Specifically, new restrictions on the evidence of billed medical expenses could reduce the amounts available for estate claims related to the decedent’s medical care before death. However, the core wrongful death claim for the “full value of the life” remains intact, and constitutional challenges to SB 68 are ongoing. Haug Barron Law Group is monitoring this litigation closely and is already structuring cases to maximize recovery under the new rules.