Is a human life worth $350,000?
Today, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether a statutory cap of $350,000 for non-economic damages can be applied to wrongful death medical malpractice cases.
Georgia has a caps statute that applies solely to non-economic damages claims in medical malpractice cases.
Nearly 16 years ago, Georgia’s high court struck down the caps as unconstitutional in the Nestlehutt case. In Nestlehutt, the Georgia Supreme Court based its decision on the constitutional right to trial by jury and concluded that there was a common law right to trial by jury for the claims when Georgia's constitution was adopted in 1798.
Here's the distinction that defendants argue. Nestlehutt was not a wrongful death case. Defendants now argue that Nestlehutt doesn't apply to wrongful death claims because those claims didn’t exist in 1798. As a result, defendants argue the cap can be constitutionally applied to wrongful death claims.
I am not involved in the pending cases before the Supreme Court. But in my opinion, I see several fundamental problems with the defense arguments.
First, why are we freezing constitutional analysis in 1798 at all? Georgia has adopted multiple constitutions since then, including one that was adopted after the Civil War so Georgia could be re-admitted to the Union under Reconstruction requirements and the current one that was adopted in 1983.
Second, even if you accept the 1798 framing, juries at that time did decide damages for loss of enjoyment of life. That’s exactly what wrongful death non-economic damages are.
Third, even assuming (for argument’s sake) that a cap could somehow be limited only to wrongful death claims, can a court actually sever and rewrite the statute that way? Or does that require the legislature to pass an entirely new law?
And beyond the legal mechanics, let’s talk about the real-world implications.
If caps apply only to wrongful death, someone who is catastrophically injured by malpractice, but survives, can recover full non-economic damages. Someone who dies from malpractice has their life valued at $350,000.
Let that sink in. Under that system, it is legally “cheaper” to kill someone than to permanently injure them. That’s not just illogical. It’s morally upside-down.
Caps don’t promote justice. They don’t improve patient safety. They don’t target bad actors. They simply shift the cost of negligence away from negligent providers and onto families who have lost everything.
Worse, they create perverse incentives. When death is capped but survival isn’t, the law quietly rewards the worst outcomes.
Curious to hear others’ thoughts on this. Should the government have laws that limit the value of human life?
What do you think? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.
