How much should a victim of shoddy medicine be compensated? In 2005, the state Legislature decided that its members were better qualified to answer that question than juries of Georgia citizens who sat through weeks of malpractice lawsuits, carefully weighing testimony and evidence.

For example, lawmakers capped the amount a person can collect for pain and suffering, leaving settlements to depend more on the value of a victim's economic worth. Because of his higher earnings, a corporate CEO disabled by a drunken or incompetent surgeon would be able to claim far more in malpractice compensation than would a stay-at-home mother or a child.

In a victory for consumers, a Fulton Superior Court judge struck down the law, ruling last week that it creates a two-tiered system of victims. "The statute effectively puts substantial limitations on the rights of the poor and middle class to recovery while leaving the right to virtually unlimited recoveries unimpeded for the wealthy," wrote Judge Marvin Arrington. "The disabled manager of a hedge fund, a corporate CEO, an entertainer or such other person whose income is in the tens of millions of dollars has a claim under Georgia law that would dwarf the amount awarded in any case for pain and suffering."

The law also exempts the medical profession from the responsibility demanded of every other field. Why should a person who loses a limb through the negligence of a truck driver, for example, merit more in damages than a person disabled because of the negligence of a doctor?

If appealed, as seems likely, Arrington's decision will set the stage for a Georgia Supreme Court showdown over tort reform. The court ought to throw the law out.

—- Maureen Downey, for the editorial board (mdowney@ajc.com)