Because the Supreme Court did not address our dispositive holdings — that the trial court did not err in denying Brixmor’s motion for summary judgment and that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on James’s motion for spoliation sanctions — and because those holdings are consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, those holdings become binding upon the return of the remittitur. Jordan v. Everson, 345 Ga. App. 509, 510, 813 S.E.2d 600 (2018). Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded with direction.

The Supreme Court's analysis does not dictate we reach a different result with respect to this claim, and the trial court properly dismissed it. See Shadix v. Carroll County , 274 Ga. 560, 562-563 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001) ; see also Schroeder v. Dekalb County , 350 Ga. App. 82, 82-83, 828 S.E.2d 108 (2019) ; Jordan v. Everson , 345 Ga. App. 509, 511, 813 S.E.2d 600 (2018). The parties refer to a Privacy Notice that allegedly ensured patients that the Clinic would protect their private information.