The Supreme Court of Georgia denied a petition for certiorari Monday in Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons, P.C. v. Keel, bringing to a close a medical malpractice case that raised questions about jury instruction standards for evaluating expert testimony.

The high court's unanimous decision means the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling will stand as the final word in the dispute. All justices concurred in the denial, which was issued without written opinion as is standard practice for certiorari denials.

The case centered on procedural questions that arose during the underlying medical malpractice trial. Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons had sought review of issues related to jury instructions, specifically arguing that trial courts should be required to provide specific guidance to juries about how to evaluate testimony regarding a medical expert's personal practices when determining the applicable standard of care.

According to Justice David Bethel's concurring statement in the denial, the petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's guidance was necessary on "the issue of when a trial court is 'required' to instruct the jury on how to evaluate testimony about a medical expert's personal practices as part of the jury's overall assessment of the applicable standard of care and any breach thereof."

During the original trial, the medical practice had requested specific jury instructions on this point, but the trial court rejected the proposed charge. The Court of Appeals later reviewed this decision and concluded that any error in the jury instruction was harmless, meaning it did not affect the outcome of the case sufficiently to warrant reversal.

The procedural dispute highlights ongoing challenges in medical malpractice litigation regarding how juries should evaluate expert testimony about medical standards. In such cases, medical experts often testify about both general standards of care in the medical community and their own personal practices. The question of how juries should weigh these different types of testimony can be crucial in determining liability.

Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons had hoped to establish clearer statewide guidance on when trial courts must provide specific instructions to help juries navigate these complex evaluations. The practice argued that without proper guidance, juries might give inappropriate weight to an expert's personal practices when determining whether the defendant physician met the required standard of care.

The Court of Appeals case number was A25A0381, indicating the case had proceeded through the normal appellate process before reaching the state's highest court. The Supreme Court of Georgia, like the U.S. Supreme Court, has discretionary jurisdiction over most cases and chooses which matters to review based on their legal significance and potential impact on Georgia law.

Justice Bethel's decision to write separately, even in concurrence with the denial, suggests the issues raised were substantive enough to merit individual consideration, though not sufficient to warrant full review by the court. Concurring statements in certiorari denials sometimes signal that while the current case may not present the ideal vehicle for addressing particular legal questions, the issues remain of interest to the court.

The denial effectively validates the Court of Appeals' handling of the jury instruction question and its harmless error analysis. This outcome suggests that Georgia appellate courts have adequate tools under current law to address disputes over jury instructions in medical malpractice cases without requiring new Supreme Court precedent.

For medical malpractice practitioners in Georgia, the denial indicates that existing standards for jury instructions regarding expert testimony evaluation will remain in place. Trial courts will continue to have discretion in crafting jury instructions, subject to appellate review under established harmless error standards.

The case also reflects broader patterns in Supreme Court practice, where the vast majority of certiorari petitions are denied. The court typically reserves its limited docket for cases presenting novel legal questions, conflicts between lower court decisions, or matters of significant public importance.

The timing of the denial, issued on February 3, 2026, follows the court's normal schedule for processing certiorari petitions. The court meets regularly to consider pending petitions and issues orders accordingly.

With the Supreme Court's denial, the litigation between Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons and Keel appears to have concluded, barring any extraordinary post-conviction remedies. The Court of Appeals decision now represents the final resolution of whatever underlying disputes gave rise to the medical malpractice case.

The case serves as a reminder that even when legal practitioners identify potentially significant procedural questions, the state's highest court exercises careful discretion in selecting which cases merit full review and written opinions that establish binding precedent for future cases.