[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6284723,"mediaKeyId","2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4","parentId",2576971,"title","Lawyers warn mandatory bifurcation in SB 68 would prolong trials, strip judges' discretion","audioSeconds",3219,"startMs",3049000,"endMs",6268000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4&start=3049&end=6268","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4/thumbnail_3049000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6284723/Georgia/Lawyers-warn-mandatory-bifurcation-in-SB-68-would-prolong-trials-strip-judges-discretion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6284723-f9f575e147ea2a31d198fc34be9bb136/orig.mp4?Expires=1770903208&Signature=b1CPV96cBkwwQFrBgozw8vP1KbadwJGrmMc1P19Jo9TuwkPk5FQOZeKmhajHRslLoWqcwypsaasqSVHjJ0APvshACNZvZJjtZr6902c3OG0IAVmToZ8FWiOnUwiqlP8dwjBTUbFYSqwStffsDBvPqwG5j1WZdJwyFrZwUQ0FK--pY4eq~Jgbf4vpce87vWCvgn5FiHOuQqNScWTmkzvP15v~kr1NhJN4bkJqfLWHS-G60qzGtqmQrOvtn2JUE01y6eMZIZ-7TCMqIazr~SANk4FjS-8t0s4qrKSrxegSbtU1pS5I3LtIXyAF4HsMjrQjgDPUGLDtPNA5EZ5Au-F8Ww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgia State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","Representatives of plaintiff and defense bars told a House subcommittee that Section 8 of Senate Bill 68, which would mandate bifurcation or trifurcation of personal-injury and wrongful-death trials on the election of a single party, would lengthen court proceedings and strip trial judges of discretion.

Why it matters: Section 8 would alter trial practice across a broad class of civil cases by requiring judges to separate liability, damages and punitive issues upon a party’s election. Witnesses argued that the change would increase the number of jury voir dires, opening statements, instructions and deliberations — and repeatedly summon the same witnesses.

Brandon Peake, a Columbus trial lawyer, said the provision singles out injured Georgians for different treatment. \"Mandatory bifurcation or trifurcation in this bill only deals with personal injury and wrongful death cases,\" Peake told the committee. \"You're singling out a certain class of Georgia citizens.\" He urged the committee to preserve judges’ discretion under existing rules, which permit bifurcation when the judge finds good cause.

Opponents described practical problems that would flow from mandatory splits. Peake and other plaintiff attorneys said judges routinely manage evidence presentation, take witnesses out of order, and protect jurors from irrelevant information. Forcing multiple phases, they said, will multiply closing arguments, jury instructions and deliberations. \"For every one of those cases where you may save some time, there's gonna be 20 other cases that are prolonged significantly,\" Peake warned.

Attorneys described specific consequences for witnesses and plaintiffs. Peake and others said individuals who already face trauma — victims of wrongful death, sexual assault or human trafficking — could be forced to give repeated testimony. Melanie Manis, a survivor of trafficking who testified about the emotional toll of one trial, said, \"To have to repeat that one, two, three times ... it takes every bit of courage inside of us to come up just one time and say, this is what happened to me.\" She and other survivors urged an exemption for trafficking and sexual-abuse survivors.

Supporters of procedural limits argued that courts should stop unpredictable and large awards that they said arise from exaggeration of billed charges. Some defense witnesses said mandatory phase splitting could prevent juries from anchoring on inflated damages and encourage early summary resolution in plainly defensible cases. David Stegall, an insurance consultant, and others told the committee they had seen limited examples of \"nuclear\" or \"outlier\" verdicts in the state and recommended tighter rules.

Committee members pressed witnesses on trade-offs. Representative Evans and others asked whether compulsory splitting could yield faster resolution when liability plainly fails; witnesses acknowledged that in some cases a defense verdict would shorten proceedings but said that on balance the average trial would be lengthened.

Status: Testimony will be used by staff as members consider amendments. No formal action or vote was taken during the hearing.

Bottom line: The hearing highlighted a split between plaintiffs’ lawyers and business/insurer witnesses over court efficiency. Plaintiffs’ advocates said mandatory bifurcation would replace judicial judgment with a rigid procedure that would increase court time and burden vulnerable witnesses. Defense and business witnesses said the change would constrain opportunistic litigation and reduce jury anchoring on inflated billed amounts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03.11.25 Rules Subcommittee on Lawsuit Reform","oneSentenceSummary","A House subcommittee heard opposition from trial lawyers and survivors to Section 8 of Senate Bill 68, which would mandate bifurcation or trifurcation of personal-injury trials on a party's election, and supporters who said it would curb \"anchoring\" on inflated billed amounts.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Georgia , Georgia","taxId",77688,"location","Georgia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6284729,"Georgia hearing spotlights fight over 'phantom damages' and medical-billing language in Senate Bill 68",2626,1525000,4151000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4&start=1525&end=4151","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4/thumbnail_1525000.jpg","/articles/6284729/Georgia/Georgia-hearing-spotlights-fight-over-phantom-damages-and-medical-billing-language-in-Senate-Bill-68","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6284729-177630949514b4fbe567e2338fe0c45c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770903208&Signature=f7z07Cir4~SizJBBu1158uTGUw0uJvKmZRsLw6v9OEva8K39Lo4YCI~UNZsWm4lyUE4mbmvT4Ulp0owiaL4T6R6nCsbg2Ug25hQ7fa8t4lI2K1owsa0lCo16nKZ8XEe-OsVzfwNJkhXNH~45Z-05TjjmNAZFKtW9G2YXgldAJB67O4HwJQXEl4keaERmSex3u3ed46X~NnSJXOYbZKjkQK-TNbixkn1WOYjgIIBjT7BKGGzwEZpHfetr5pZdGYaR7cgD6Qypsgx~X-xQFKH40HtaR3wxGH1pxRINgAq~lJqeJOizT3c8hu5Xx4zgxei2RGJ3X1leMBasKuBwbb~2eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Georgia House subcommittee heard hours of testimony for and against Section 7 of Senate Bill 68 on medical-billing disclosure and so-called \"phantom damages,\" with hospitals, physicians and plaintiff attorneys warning the change would reduce access to care while business groups and insurers said it would curb inflated awards.

The bill’s medical-billing language would let juries see the amounts billed and the amounts actually paid or payable, supporters said. Opponents said that change would let tort defendants and juries treat the contractual discounts purchasers secure through insurance as the plaintiff’s true loss.

Why it matters: Section 7 would alter long-standing evidentiary practice about collateral-source information — what juries can learn about insurance payments or contractual write-downs. Witnesses said the change could shift settlement leverage, affect hospitals’ recovery, and influence whether specialists accept certain patients.

Providers and hospitals argued the current practice lets injured patients secure care and pursue recovery. Gordon Terry, chief executive officer of Integrity Spine and Orthopedics, warned of what he said were real-world consequences seen in Florida after similar changes. \"You can't limit physicians on what they get paid,\" Terry said, urging the committee to \"strike lines 359 through 375 in its entirety.\" He said limiting what providers receive in personal-injury cases led many specialists to stop treating injured patients in Florida.

Insurance and business witnesses countered that inflated billed charges — the large \"blue\" numbers juries see — are routinely far above what providers actually receive and can lead to outsized pain-and-suffering awards. Josh Carroll, a Macon lawyer who practices against ERISA plans, said juries should not be insulated from the reality that patients and insurers negotiate rates: \"We have paid over $62,000 in health insurance premiums,\" Carroll said in a hypothetical aimed at showing how a tortfeasor could improperly receive the benefit of a plaintiff's negotiated rate if the process is opaque.

Plaintiff-side providers described how they use letters of protection and other arrangements to treat injured patients before settlements. An audiologist who treats mild traumatic brain injury said the practice keeps small specialty providers afloat while credentialing and liens resolve. \"We use collateral source to be able to keep our lights on, to be able to keep treating Georgians,\" the audiologist testified.

Hospitals gave concrete examples of insurance and premium pressure. Deborah Moses, chief risk officer at Piedmont Healthcare, said professional-liability and malpractice costs have climbed and that in her view juries need accurate information to decide. Vicki Lewis, CEO of Coffee Regional Medical Center, described excess-coverage costs rising from \"$550,000 in 2014 to $4,000,000 in 2025,\" and said a large jury award prompted a physician to stop practicing at her hospital.

Experts who have studied tort reform said there is not a simple, consistent link between passing tort restrictions and lower insurance rates. Alex Wetherbee, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, cited long-term research showing no reliable correlation between broad tort restrictions and insurance premiums and argued the civil jury system remains capable and important.

Several witnesses raised specific legal and practical points:
- ERISA and self-funded plans: Josh Carroll emphasized that ERISA plans can require repayment of amounts the plan paid, and he urged the committee to consider how plan repayment rights affect injured plaintiffs.
- Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE: Several witnesses warned that the bill’s approach could disproportionately harm low-income patients or those on public programs, because many treatments are not covered by those programs and would be effectively \"zeroed out\" before a jury saw future medical costs.
- Collection and lien dynamics: Leighton Moore, an Atlanta lawyer, described the complexity of future-care planning, Medicare/Medicaid set-asides and subrogation — facts that he said juries cannot reliably predict decades into the future.

Opponents urged a narrower fix. Multiple physician and provider witnesses asked the committee to preserve jury access to the actual amount needed to satisfy a provider's bill rather than substituting hypothetical insurance payments when no claim was filed. \"When no insurance was used, he also wants to impose a new fiction,\" Shevin Polidore, owner of Revive Orthopedics, said of the bill. \"That insurance would have paid, but that's fiction. That's not what the patients owed.\"

Supporters argued the bill's change would reduce opportunistic litigation tied to list prices that plaintiffs never paid. Charles Tarbutton, president of a Sandersville trucking company, said juries should weigh actual payments and that prosecutors and insurers have seen demands that far exceed reasonable economic loss. \"We are asking for admissibility of the actual pay amount that sets a floor and the full billed amount that sets a ceiling,\" Tarbutton said.

Where it stands: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony from both sides; committee members asked many follow-up questions, particularly about how future medical care should be valued and how ERISA and Medicaid repayment rules would operate. No formal action or vote was recorded at the hearing.

What’s next: Committee members signaled they plan additional work and possible amendments. Witnesses on both sides said they were available to help craft narrower language that would limit windfalls without removing plaintiffs’ ability to show the jury what a patient actually owes or will need in future care.","A Georgia House subcommittee heard hours of testimony for and against Section 7 of Senate Bill 68 on medical-billing disclosure and so-called \"phantom damages,\" with hospitals, physicians and plaintiff attorneys warning the change would reduce access to care while business groups and insurers said it would curb inflated awards.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6284718,"Trafficking survivors warn SB 68's negligent-security language would bar many claims",36,6148000,6184000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4&start=6148&end=6184","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2576971-0ced7a3a08ae350660dbcb3ded5965b4/thumbnail_6148000.jpg","/articles/6284718/Georgia/Trafficking-survivors-warn-SB-68s-negligent-security-language-would-bar-many-claims","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6284718-c65821d9071c8ef74fc9926e235c685a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770903208&Signature=jit7NO9ftE4yfzYK2-BrDi2zGbLX1JTnDc6Q19YCwjnKZ11ftOF1llfTeBZG8d5oiJZTD~gC7rCt5jwBwTLzU1PquGccoiwoTijSKXcm0BsJ9mRW3l8v6LBJGE4YS~SQUbSngsZn1acUz2RsTIClDIMk4r5eJ-aUn24bNCoSbrIjzAWaVy-UHp4RtwEGO6bokSyys5c2kCVXtdF821iYQWOxLmgKYDM5ihEHESIeFd37RptSiUIgjrwMAew3a92QTbcCOpAxpcpL9uRlPRJAXsz6XahTXRFO~UE7zY9L-hky9E6lUyYOzh5LubUzWGHeOl5dK6eNTTDGGOCfxd68Bg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Survivors of human trafficking, victim advocates and plaintiffs' attorneys urged the Georgia House Subcommittee on Rules not to approve Senate Bill 68’s negligent-security provision, saying the law’s proof requirements would deny victims meaningful civil remedies.

Why it matters: One section of SB 68 would narrow premises-liability claims for \"negligent security\" by requiring plaintiffs to prove multiple, specific conditions — including that the owner \"knew the person would be on the premises\" and that there were \"prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct\" with the same identity, time and location. Critics said those \"and\" conditions are too rigid to reflect how trafficking and sexual violence actually occur.

Melanie Manis, a trafficking survivor who testified, said the emotional cost of one civil trial is severe; forcing survivors to testify multiple times or meet literal, specific-knowledge thresholds will bar cases. \"There are only 10 women that have ever testified in Georgia in a civil case about trafficking,\" she said. \"To have to repeat that 1, 2, 3 times ... takes every bit of courage inside of us to come up just 1 time and say, this is what happened to me.\"

Joanne Dorshow Shaw, who represents trafficking survivors, described deposition questions that require survivors to recount the most degrading acts in painful detail. She warned the committee the bill's phased trial structure would multiply those harms: \"What if you had to answer yes to any of those questions? And what if the next question was, 'Well, tell me about that?' Because that's what my clients have to do,\" she said.

Attorney Denise Hoing, who has represented both sides, analyzed the negligent-security text and concluded that the statutory listing of conditions are conjunctive and would eliminate most viable claims. She told the committee the example offered by a defense witness (a repetitive assault in a Waffle House restroom) \"doesn't survive this bill\" because the statute demands a highly particularized showing of identity, location and timing.

Plaintiffs' attorneys and advocates requested targeted amendments: carve-outs or evidentiary relaxations for human-trafficking and sexual-assault survivors; a reworking of the \"prior occurrences\" and \"specific physical condition\" tests so that proximate patterns and indicia of risk — not literal daily repeats — suffice.

Opponents of change — including some business groups — said they do not intend to shield bad actors and agreed that genuinely dangerous venues should remain liable. But many witnesses warned that the draft language, as written, would create a near-impossible burden of proof for survivors who often face anonymity of perpetrators, shifting schedules and incomplete evidence.

Result: Committee members asked staff to consider amendments and survivor-based exemptions. No vote was taken at the hearing.

What survivors asked for: Several witnesses urged an explicit survivor exception so that victims of trafficking or sexual assault would not have to meet the statute's most literal conditions, and called for language that focuses on owner knowledge of a heightened risk pattern rather than a strict identity/time/location test.","Survivors, advocates and plaintiffs' lawyers told a House subcommittee that the negligent-security standards in Senate Bill 68 create impossible \"and\" conditions (specific time, identity, location) that will prevent victims of human trafficking and sexual abuse from proving claims against hotels and other venues.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawyers warn mandatory bifurcation in SB 68 would prolong trials, strip judges' discretion

Georgia hearing spotlights fight over 'phantom damages' and medical-billing language in Senate Bill 68

Trafficking survivors warn SB 68's negligent-security language would bar many claims