CHARLIE BRIDGES v. AKSHAY GUPTA

── CHARLIE BRIDGES v. AKSHAY GUPTA ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General FOURTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., WATKINS and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk's office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules APRIL 21, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0095. BRIDGES v. GUPTA. PADGETT, Judge. Ronney E. Jones (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) appeals from an attorney fees order entered in this medical malpractice case. The trial court awarded attorney fees to Dr. Akshay Gupta and Atlanta Heart Associates, P.C. (the “Defendants”) under both OCGA §§ 9-15-14(b) and 9-11-37(d). Plaintiff’s Counsel argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the fees. We agree, and therefore vacate the attorney fees order and remand the matter to the trial court. Annie Bridges (“Bridges”) had a documented heart problem that required the installation of a pacemaker in 2012. The pacemaker was wirelessly connected to a monitor that was installed in her home and periodically reported back to her treating physician, Dr. Gupta. On April 15, 2016, Dr. Gupta received a report transmitted by the pacemaker monitor which showed that Bridges experienced high ventricular rates for a short period of time on April 9, 2016. Dr. Gupta noted the event and classified it as benign. Bridges passed away on May 8, 2016, and her cause of death was listed by the coroner as organic heart disease. No autopsy or toxicology testing was conducted. Bridges’ spouse, individually and on behalf of Bridges’ estate ( “Plaintiff”), brought a professional negligence action against Dr. Gupta and his medical practice in June 2017. Both Dr. Gupta and his medical practice denied the allegations of negligence within the complaint. The parties exchanged discovery and, during the pendency of the litigation, neither party sought a motion to compel or a protective order. A jury trial was conducted in August 2023, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Gupta and the medical practice. The discovery requests made by the lawyers representing Dr. Gupta and his medical practice (“Defense Counsel”) included both interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Pursuant to two interrogatories and three requests for production, Plaintiff was required to produce documentation supporting every 2 allegation of negligence, medical records related to the alleged negligence, and any radiological films or other illustrative material depicting the alleged negligence. Additionally, one of the interrogatories asked whether there existed any “radiological films, or other illustrative material depicting any person, thing[,] or occurrence relevant to any issue in this lawsuit, directly or indirectly.”1 One of the requests for production sought “[a]ll photographs, drawings, pictures, movies, radiological film, videotapes, or other illustrative material depicting any person, thing, or occurrence relevant to any issue in this lawsuit, either directly or indirectly.” On August 31, 2023, the week after the verdict, Plaintiff’s Counsel sent a letter to Defense Counsel, noting that he intended to file a motion for new trial. In that letter, Plaintiff’s Counsel described the ground upon which he maintained a new trial should be granted and included the following paragraph: Once a new trial is granted …, there will be new evidence introduced. As the attached exhibit shows, Abbott Labs produced a post-morteum [sic] analysis of [Bridges’] pacemaker. It shows that on the night of her death, … Bridges experienced a 14 second long episode of atrial 1 The responses made