A Georgia shopper won $975,000 over a fall at Walmart in 2020, but her lawyer compared pain damages with an expert’s $8,000 daily fee; on October 29, an appeals court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial

Georgia woman’s $975,000 Walmart fall award was overturned by appeals court

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. 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. The judges ruled that these comparisons were not permitted under Georgia’s revised law and could have influenced the jury’s decision.According to the judgment, 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. She filed a lawsuit against the retailer in September 2022, seeking compensation for her injuries.Medders already had knee problems before the incident. However, she claimed that her pain became worse after the fall and eventually required surgery. Walmart disputed this, arguing that her knee condition existed before the accident and that the fall had not made the later operations necessary.Both sides presented medical experts when the case went to trial in January this year. During the lawyer’s final arguments to the jury, a disagreement arose over how compensation for pain and suffering should be calculated. That disagreement eventually became the main reason the verdict was overturned.

Expert’s $8,000 daily fee

During the trial, Medders’ lawyer questioned a medical expert called by Walmart. The questioning included how much the doctor charged for providing expert testimony.The doctor charged $2,000 an hour for expert work and $8,000 for a full day at trial. These figures were presented to the jury as part of the evidence.Later, while asking the jury to consider compensation for Medders’ pain and suffering, her lawyer referred to the doctor’s earnings. He pointed out that the expert would have charged $8,000 a day for attending 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.The trial judge heard arguments from both sides but allowed Medders’ lawyer to continue. The judge reasoned that the expert’s fees had already been discussed during the trial and were therefore part of the evidence.The lawyer then suggested that the doctor’s daily fee would amount to about $3 million a year. Walmart objected again, describing the figures as phantom numbers.It asked the judge either to declare a mistrial or to give the jury instructions correcting the impression created by the argument. Both requests were rejected.Medders’ lawyer subsequently suggested another way of calculating compensation, using hourly figures between $7.25 and $12.15, closer to minimum-wage rates. Walmart also objected to this comparison. Despite the objections, the case went to the jury, which awarded Medders $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. These are known as noneconomic 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.The appeals court found that comparing Medders’ pain with an expert’s professional earnings did not meet this requirement. It reached the same conclusion about the minimum-wage figures.The judges explained that the fact a figure had been mentioned during a trial did not automatically make it suitable for calculating compensation.However, the court clarified that lawyers were not completely prohibited from suggesting hourly or daily amounts for pain and suffering. Such calculations could still be used if they were properly connected to the 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. According to the judgment, Medders had sought $186,000 for medical bills. Her lawyer also requested approximately $950,000 for non-economic damages and suggested that an appropriate total award could be $1,136,000. The jury ultimately awarded $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. The Court of Appeals of Georgia therefore overturned the judgment and ordered a new trial. The case will now return to the lower court for another trial.