How Pre-Existing Conditions Affect Your Georgia Injury Damages

On this page

A pre-existing condition does not bar a Georgia injury claim. The injured person can recover for an earlier condition that the defendant’s wrong made worse or longer lasting, to the extent of that worsening, and the defendant takes the plaintiff as the plaintiff was. The real contest is causation: whether the accident, or the condition that was already there, produced what is being claimed.

Recovery for a Worsened Condition

The measure appears in a charge the Court of Appeals approved in Geary v. Estate of Tapley, No. A24A0978 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024). The trial court told the jury that “if you find the Plaintiff already had an injury or preexisting condition prior to the time of the malpractice alleged, but that the malpractice exacerbated the condition, or made it more long lasting, then the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages to the extent that the condition was worsened or prolonged.” It added that “the fact that the Plaintiff already had a preexisting condition and may have been more vulnerable or susceptible to injury does not relieve the Defendant from liability for any aggravation of that condition.”

The defense argued that the case involved no pre-existing condition that the malpractice had worsened. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The claim was that the surgeon failed to perform a cystogram and failed to repair a bladder perforation, so a charge on damages for worsening that perforation was “apt.” The charge that the defendant took the patient as found “also was apt,” because the evidence showed the 80-year-old patient had congestive heart failure, severe emphysema, severe heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, had a pacemaker, and had smoked for years.

Taking the Plaintiff as Found

Geary relied on AT Systems Southeast, Inc. v. Carnes, 272 Ga. App. 671 (2005), in which a minivan passenger suffered a type of hip fracture when an armored truck collided with the van. The evidence showed obesity, circulatory problems, and high blood pressure “which could complicate her recovery,” and the trial court charged the jury on the “egg shell plaintiff.” The Court of Appeals approved the charge, quoting an earlier decision: “[I]t has long been the rule that a tortfeasor takes a plaintiff in whatever condition he finds him. A negligent actor must bear the risk that his liability will be increased by reason of the actual physical condition of the other toward whom his act [is] negligent.”

The Supreme Court of Georgia illustrated the principle in Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010): a tortfeasor who negligently cuts a hemophiliac who then bleeds to death, where others would have survived, “remains responsible for that wrongful death.”

When the Evidence Supports the Charges

The charges do not require proof that the plaintiff was fragile; slight evidence is enough. In Setliff v. Littleton, 264 Ga. App. 711 (2003), a teenage driver suffered neck, back, and knee injuries in a collision, and the knee problems continued despite surgery on both knees. The plaintiff’s surgeon attributed them to the collision. The defense suggested other causes and pointed to “a little area of degeneration” on an early MRI, and the plaintiff’s surgeon conceded that “[i]t is also possible that she has a genetic tendency to get problems with her knees.” The jury awarded $244,774.34. On appeal the defense argued that the eggshell and aggravation charges were unsupported, and the Court of Appeals held: “Since a charge may be given when there is slight evidence to sustain it, and here there is evidence to support both charges, we find no error.”

Causation Decides the Amount

Georgia’s damages statutes draw the line the parties argue over. Damage that is only the imaginary or possible result of a tortious act is too remote to be recovered (OCGA 51-12-8), while damages that are the legal and natural result of the act, even if contingent to some extent, are not too remote (OCGA 51-12-9). Special damages are recoverable only on proof (OCGA 51-12-2(b)).

In McCormick v. Harris, 253 Ga. App. 417 (2002), the plaintiff was rear-ended and later developed a knee condition called chondromalacia. One surgeon testified that the condition “can be traumatic or it can be a degenerative process and can develop with no injury whatsoever.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a new trial because “there was a jury issue as to whether the accident proximately caused Mrs. McCormick’s knee condition, and there is medical evidence that the condition for which she sought to recover may not have been caused by her accident with Harris.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the aggravation rule apply in a medical malpractice case?
Yes. Geary was a malpractice case, and the Court of Appeals held that charges on aggravation of a pre-existing condition and on taking the patient as found were both apt on the evidence there.

Can a jury award less than the medical bills when causation is disputed?
In McCormick, the plaintiff showed medical bills of $3,939.86 and evidence that future knee surgery would cost $7,500, and the jury awarded $1,500. The Court of Appeals let the verdict stand because causation of the knee condition was a jury question.

Is expert testimony needed to connect a worsened condition to the accident?
It is required when a lay jury would have to answer a specialized medical question to decide whether the defendant’s conduct caused the injury (Cowart v. Widener). Whether a particular aggravation claim reaches that line depends on the medical facts.

Does a possible genetic tendency defeat the claim?
Not by itself. In Setliff, the plaintiff’s own surgeon conceded a possible genetic tendency toward knee problems, and the verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed.

  • Geary v. Estate of Tapley, No. A24A0978 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024)
  • AT Systems Southeast, Inc. v. Carnes, 272 Ga. App. 671 (2005), quoting Coleman v. Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, 194 Ga. App. 508 (1990)
  • Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010)
  • Setliff v. Littleton, 264 Ga. App. 711 (2003)
  • McCormick v. Harris, 253 Ga. App. 417 (2002)
  • OCGA 51-12-2(b); OCGA 51-12-8; OCGA 51-12-9

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about pre-existing conditions and injury damages under Georgia law. It is not legal advice, is not medical advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. How an earlier condition affects a claim depends on the medical evidence and the specific facts. A person injured in an accident should seek medical care and consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *