A Georgia woman who won $975,000 in compensation after a fall at a Walmart store in 2020 will have to go through another trial after a US appeals court overturned the verdict on Thursday.
asserted
court → win → Thursday
The court found that her lawyer had used unrelated figures, including an expert witness's $8,000 daily fee, to suggest how much money the woman should receive for pain and suffering.
asserted
woman → find → pain
The judges ruled that these comparisons were not permitted under Georgia's revised law and could have influenced the jury's decision.
uncertain
comparisons → rule → decision
, the case involved Ruby Medders, who said she injured her knee and ankle after slipping and falling during a visit to a Walmart store in Valdosta, Georgia, in November 2020.
asserted
she → involve → November
She filed a lawsuit against the retailer in September 2022, seeking compensation for her injuries.
asserted
She → file → injuries
Medders already had knee problems before the incident.
asserted
Medders → have → incident
However, she claimed that her pain became worse after the fall and eventually required surgery.
asserted
pain → claim → surgery
Walmart disputed this, arguing that her knee condition existed before the accident and that the fall had not made the later operations necessary.
asserted
operations → dispute → accident
Both sides presented medical experts when the case went to trial in January this year.
asserted
case → present → January
During the lawyer's final arguments to the jury, a disagreement arose over how compensation for pain and suffering should be calculated.
asserted
compensation → arise → pain
That disagreement eventually became the main reason the verdict was overturned.
asserted
verdict → become → ?
During the trial, Medders' lawyer questioned a medical expert called by Walmart.
asserted
lawyer → question → Walmart
The questioning included how much the doctor charged for providing expert testimony.
asserted
doctor → include → testimony
The doctor charged $2,000 an hour for expert work and $8,000 for a full day at trial.
asserted
doctor → charge → trial
These figures were presented to the jury as part of the evidence.
asserted
figures → present → evidence
Later, while asking the jury to consider compensation for Medders' pain and suffering, her lawyer referred to the doctor's earnings.
asserted
lawyer → ask → earnings
He pointed out that the expert would have charged $8,000 a day for attending court.
asserted
expert → point → court
Walmart's lawyers immediately objected arguing that the doctor's professional fees had no meaningful connection to the pain Medders claimed to have experienced.
asserted
Medders → object → pain
The trial judge heard arguments from both sides but allowed Medders' lawyer to continue.
asserted
lawyer → hear → sides
The judge reasoned that the expert's fees had already been discussed during the trial and were therefore part of the evidence.
asserted
fees → reason → evidence
The lawyer then suggested that the doctor's daily fee would amount to about $3 million a year.
uncertain
fee → suggest → million
Walmart objected again, describing the figures as phantom numbers.
asserted
Walmart → object → numbers
It asked the judge either to declare a mistrial or to give the jury instructions correcting the impression created by the argument.
asserted
It → ask → argument
Both requests were rejected.
asserted
requests → reject → ?
Medders' lawyer subsequently suggested another way of calculating compensation, using hourly figures between $7.25 and $12.15, closer to minimum-wage rates.
uncertain
lawyer → suggest → rates
Walmart also objected to this comparison.
asserted
Walmart → object → comparison
Despite the objections, the case went to the jury, which awarded Medders $975,000.
asserted
which → go → 975,000
Appeals court rejected lawyer's comparisons
Walmart challenged the verdict, arguing that the trial judge had failed to apply changes made to Georgia law in April 2025.
The revised law deals with how lawyers can argue about compensation for losses that do not have a direct financial value, such as physical pain, emotional distress, and suffering.
asserted
that → reject → pain
These are known as noneconomic damages.
asserted
These → know → damages
The law allows lawyers to suggest monetary amounts for such suffering, but their arguments must have a rational connection to the evidence about the injured person's condition.
asserted
arguments → allow → condition
The appeals court found that comparing Medders' pain with an expert's professional earnings did not meet this requirement.
asserted
comparing → find → requirement
It reached the same conclusion about the minimum-wage figures.
asserted
It → reach → figures
The judges explained that the fact a figure had been mentioned during a trial did not automatically make it suitable for calculating compensation.
asserted
it → explain → compensation
However, the court clarified that lawyers were not completely prohibited from suggesting hourly or daily amounts for pain and suffering.
asserted
lawyers → clarify → pain
Such calculations could still be used if they were properly connected to the evidence.
uncertain
they → use → evidence
Overturning of the $975,000 verdict
The appeals court also examined whether the disputed arguments could have affected the amount awarded by the jury.
uncertain
arguments → examine → jury
According to the judgment, Medders had sought $186,000 for medical bills.
uncertain
Medders → accord → bills
Her lawyer also requested approximately $950,000 for non-economic damages and suggested that an appropriate total award could be $1,136,000.
uncertain
award → request → damages
The jury ultimately awarded $975,000.
asserted
jury → award → 975,000
The judges concluded that the improper comparisons could have influenced that decision, particularly because the trial court had not taken steps to correct them after Walmart objected.
uncertain
Walmart → conclude → them
…and 2 more, not listed.
The Aporia
