A lengthy medical malpractice case that stemmed from a tick bite may be heading for a retrial after the Georgia Supreme Court this week reversed a jury’s verdict that cleared four Gainesville doctors of negligence.

In a 5-2 decision, the high court found fault with an instruction about the legal concept of hindsight given to a Hall County State Court jury in a 2006 civil trial that lasted more than two weeks.

Clay and Tracie Smith sued physicians Cathryn Finch, Charles Jones, Jeff Elder and Todd Jordan, alleging the doctors were negligent when they failed to diagnose Rocky Mountain spotted fever in their 13-year-old son, Justin Smith. The Smiths claim their son, who testified at trial, suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the illness, which he contracted from a tick bite. The family asked for $3.8 million.

Lawyers for the physicians argued that Rocky Mountain spotted fever was a rare illness that is difficult to diagnose and that their clients exercised reasonable care and skill in treating the boy.

A jury of 12 sided with the defendants, deciding the doctors were not negligent. The Smiths appealed, claiming that the instruction given to the jury about the concept of hindsight included inaccurate and confusing statements of law.

This week, a majority of the high court agreed, striking two sentences from a three-sentence instruction used by Judge B.E. Roberts, a pattern instruction that was created through previous appeals court rulings.

The Supreme Court did not find Roberts committed an error by giving the instruction, but decided that the instruction itself needed to be modified, lawyers on both sides of the case said Tuesday.

The instruction said in part that "negligence consists of foreseeing and guarding against that which is possible and likely to happen, not against that which is only remotely and slightly possible."

The high court found that sentence to be "inaccurate and misleading (and) we disapprove of the instruction in its current form," according to the majority opinion authored by Justice Carol Hunstein.

David S. Bills, the Atlanta attorney who successfully argued the appeal, said his clients had several options following the court’s ruling, among them abandoning their efforts against the doctors.

"That’s not going to happen," Bills said. He declined to comment on settlement negotiations.

Weymon Forrester, who successfully represented the doctors at trial, said there was "absolutely" no chance of a settlement in the case.

"We will just have to try the case all over again, in the event the Supreme Court denies a motion for reconsideration," Forrester said.

Forrester noted that the high court’s ruling focused on two sentences of a lengthy jury instruction given by the judge.

"This decision of the Supreme Court has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness of the decision of the jurors who decided this case, in my opinion," Forrester said.

Justin Smith’s father, Clay Smith, said in a statement that, "We as a family are happy that in their wisdom, the Supreme Court has chosen to see that those who would be wronged in the future by the courts and physicians have a leg to stand on. We are also happy that negligent doctors are limited to their claim of hindsight for future patients."