To the extent that this result conflicts with Division 1(c) of our original opinion which was not addressed directly by the Supreme Court, Division 1(c) must yield to the Supreme Court's decision. Atlanta Journal c. v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 24(1) ( 376 S.E.2d 865) (1989). Further, because the Supreme Court's decision requires us to affirm the trial court's judgment, we cannot address the other errors enumerated by Security Life. If the Supreme Court intended for this court to do otherwise, it would have reversed our opinion and remanded the case to us with direction.
As Billy Sharpton acknowledges in his brief, we review the probate court's weighing of these competing interests for abuse of discretion only. "The trial court judges of Georgia have been granted extremely broad discretionary and supervisory powers with regard to their courts and the records in their courts." Atlanta Journal c. v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 28 ( 376 SE2d 865) (1989). The probate court did not abuse its discretion. It considered the ward's attenuated privacy interest as a result of her death, concluding that her medical records should remain sealed.
The additional evidence must pertain to the issue considered on the first appeal. Atlanta Journal c. v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 24 (2) ( 376 S.E.2d 865) (1989). There is some logic also in arguing that the evidentiary posture of a case appealed at the summary judgment stage necessarily changes when that case is appealed following a full-blown trial.
A trial court, however, regardless of its good intentions, cannot decide to disregard the opinions of this court. Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. III, Const. Ga., 1983; OCGA ยง 5-6-10; Atlanta Journal c. v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 24 ( 376 S.E.2d 865); Callahan v. Panfel, 195 Ga. App. 891, 892 ( 395 S.E.2d 80). Further, absent a change in the evidentiary posture, the rulings of this court are binding on the trial court in all subsequent proceedings in this case and may not be disregarded.