The Moses Firm | October 13, 2025 | Medical Malpractice
In 2025, the Georgia General Assembly passed a landmark tort-reform package that includes several provisions with direct — and potentially significant — implications for medical malpractice litigation. While many of the reforms are more general to civil tort law, some changes affect how courts treat medical expense claims, evidentiary standards, procedural timing, and trial procedure. This post provides a clear breakdown of what’s new (or newly effective), how it intersects with medical liability, and what plaintiffs, defense counsel, and health care providers should watch closely.
Key Legislative Changes That Impact Medical Liability in Georgia
1. Senate Bills 68 & 69 — Comprehensive Tort Reform (Effective April 2025)
Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 68 and SB 69 into law in April 2025, marking the first major overhaul of Georgia’s tort laws in two decades.
While these laws are not limited to medical malpractice, they contain provisions that directly or indirectly affect malpractice claims. Below are the most relevant changes:
(a) “Phantom Damages” curbed: recoverable medical expenses now limited to amounts paid or necessary
Under prior law, Georgia often applied the “collateral source” doctrine to allow plaintiffs to recover the full billed (chargemaster) amount for medical treatment, even if the insurer or provider accepted a lower amount. SB 68 amends that:
A jury may now consider both the amount charged and the amounts actually necessary to satisfy those charges, including payments by public or private insurers (or workers’ comp).
Product Law Perspective
This change aims to eliminate “phantom damages” (i.e. inflated claims for services never fully paid).
If the provider assigned its receivables or sold its claims at a discount, that assignment or discount must be disclosed.
In medical liability cases, this means plaintiffs and counsel must carefully document what insurers or payors actually settled, discounted, or deemed reasonable for the medical care in question. The “billed vs paid” distinction may become a focal battleground in malpractice litigation.
(b) Limits on “Anchoring” noneconomic damage arguments
SB 68 imposes stricter constraints on attorneys’ ability to argue non-economic damages (pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment, etc.) before a jury:
Attorneys may not reference specific monetary values or ranges for non-economic damages during the hearing of the case (or voir dire) unless permitted by statute.
Such arguments may only be made after the close of evidence, must be rationally tied to the evidence, and must not reference “objects or values” with no rational connection to the record.
If the plaintiff’s attorney proposes a number, the same number (or range) must be used consistently in closing (i.e. no deviating upward in rebuttal) unless the argument was made in opening.
For malpractice cases — often high-exposure in terms of damages — these limitations may reduce the “swing factor” of high anchor arguments and force closer linkage between evidence and jury argument.
(c) Bifurcation: separating liability from damages
A new option allows parties to request trial bifurcation, so that the jury first determines fault and apportionment, and only then hears evidence and argument on damages.
The court may deny bifurcation only in certain limited circumstances (e.g. when the amount in controversy is below $150,000).
This structure is intended to avoid the “sympathy bias” where a jury might conflate a plaintiff’s grievous injury with fault determination.
In malpractice cases, bifurcation could lead to strategic decisions: defense counsel may prefer to decouple damage testimony to avoid tainting liability findings; plaintiffs might resist bifurcation to preserve emotional narrative context.
(d) Automatic discovery stay pending motion to dismiss
SB 68 modifies O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12 to impose an automatic stay of discovery once a motion to dismiss is filed (if filed before an answer).
The stay continues until the court rules, or 90 days after briefing is completed — unless the defendant files an answer earlier.
All discovery deadlines must be extended by the duration of the stay.
In malpractice litigation — where discovery is often central to developing expert evidence, depositions, and medical records — this mechanism could delay progress and impose strategic risk (e.g. whether to answer early).
(e) Changes to voluntary dismissal timing / double recovery of fees
SB 68 shortens the window in which a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a claim (without prejudice) and prohibits double recovery of attorneys’ fees in certain contexts.
Specifically, a plaintiff can dismiss up to 60 days after service of an answer or motion for summary judgment (whichever comes first), rather than older, more lenient rules.
Regarding attorneys’ fees, the new statute prohibits a party from recovering fees twice for the same cause of action.
Though not unique to medical cases, these changes may affect strategy in high-stakes malpractice suits where fee recovery is contested.
2. What About Caps, Statutes of Limitation, or Other Malpractice-Specific Proposals?
Interestingly, SB 68 and SB 69 do not impose a new cap on total damages in malpractice or tort claims.
Likewise, we have not yet seen major reforms to Georgia’s statute of repose, medical negligence-specific limitation periods, or new expert causation thresholds in this package (at least as of April 2025). Some points to note:
Georgia’s Supreme Court earlier struck down a 2005 cap on non-economic damages in malpractice cases (holding it unconstitutional).
There is a “Patient Injury Act” — Senate Bill 141 — a concept floated in past sessions to create an administrative panel alternative to court adjudication for medical injury claims. However, in 2025 SB 141 is recorded more in revenue / taxation context, not clearly as a malpractice reform.
Advocates like the Georgia Hospital Association continue to lobby for modernization of healthcare liability laws to control litigation-related costs.
Thus, for now, the primary malpractice-adjacent changes come via the tort reform package (SB 68/69), rather than standalone malpractice overhaul bills.
Limitations, Open Questions & What to Watch Next
Constitutional challenges: Some plaintiffs’ advocates may challenge the statutes (especially the anchoring or medical payment provisions) on constitutional grounds in pending or future cases.
Judicial interpretation: Much will depend on how Georgia courts interpret “rationally related to evidence,” when bifurcation should be granted or denied, and how strictly to apply the discovery stay.
Unintended effects: The changes may disproportionately affect smaller claims or patient-plaintiffs with limited resources.
Future bills: Watch for malpractice-specific reform efforts (e.g. caps, safe harbor rules, alternative-compensation systems) in upcoming sessions.
Georgia’s 2025 tort reform — via SB 68 and SB 69 — represents a significant recalibration of civil litigation norms in the state. While not specifically targeting medical malpractice, multiple reforms alter how medical expense claims, damage arguments, and trial procedure will operate going forward. Plaintiffs, defense attorneys, providers, and insurers alike will need to adapt quickly to the new terrain.
Contact Atlanta Medical Malpractice Attorneys at The Moses Firm
For more information, contact The Moses Firm to schedule a free consultation with an Atlanta medical malpractice lawyer in Atlanta, GA, today.
We are proud to serve clients throughout Atlanta, Fulton County, and the surrounding communities in Georgia.
The Moses Firm
3490 Piedmont Rd NE #1206,
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 721-1050
Available 24/7