Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[06/13] Leland v. Brandal
In the context of health care liability claims and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 74.351(c), when elements of a timely filed expert report are found deficient, either by the trial court or on appeal, one thirty-day extension to cure the report may be granted.

[06/12] Florida Bar v. Dove
A referee's recommendation that respondent be disciplined by a public reprimand, receive two years probation, and forfeit fees of eight-thousand dollars for her actions during an adoption case is rejected and respondent's cross-appeal for rejection of disgorgement of fees is approved where: 1) although disbarment is the presumptive sanction in a case in which candor and material misrepresentations to the court are at issue, a three year suspension is proper given the mitigating factors; 2) disgorgement is only permitted to the Client Security Fund of the Florida Bar and not to the Florida Bar Foundation since it is not mentioned in the rule; 3) disgorgement does not apply since the fee was not prohibited, illegal, or excessive; 4) fines are not permitted in disciplinary cases; and 5) the award of costs to the complainant was proper since the members should not unnecessarily bear the costs of prosecuting misdeeds of unethical members.

[06/06] Wegener v. Johnson
In a medical malpractice suit, judgment in favor of defendant-obstetrician is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in excluding supplemental testimony from plaintiff's medical expert which was not disclosed in a timely fashion; 2) any error in excluding the evidence would have been harmless in light of the lack of probative value in the testimony's insubstantial supportive role; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury to reread instructions in the case rather than giving a supplemental instruction after the jury sent a question concerning unanimity of the verdict.

[06/06] In re Methodist Healthcare Sys. of San Antonio, Ltd
In the context of medical malpractice actions and mandamus relief, an appeal is not always an adequate remedy in circumstances where a defendant moves for, and is denied, dismissal and sanctions on the ground that expert reports submitted by a plaintiff pursuant to Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4590i were inadequate.

[06/06] In re Roberts
Petition for writ of mandamus challenging a court of appeals' grant of mandamus relief from an order granting plaintiffs a 30-day grace period to amend their expert reports is conditionally granted where: 1) mandamus review is not generally available for extensions; 2) an appeal would be adequate because the trial court's 30-day grace period would not frustrate former article 4590i; and 3) the benefits of mandamus review of a 30-day extension are outweighed by the detriments.

[05/30] Petre v. Cardiovascular Consultants, SC
Judgment for the plaintiff in a malpractice action arising from coronary bypass surgery which resulted in a postoperative would infection which ultimately led to the removal of plaintiff's sternum is reversed and remanded where: 1) the only expert offered by the plaintiff to testify regarding the standard of care for non-physician employees of the defendant was not qualified to render such an opinion; 2) the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no competent testimony regarding the standard of care; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

[05/25] Kunz v. Little Co. of Mary Hosptial and Health Care Centers
Judgment for the plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there is sufficient evidence for a jury to hold that their employee's misreading of the medical plan was the cause in fact of plaintiff's injury so that the defendant-appellee is not entitled to a new trial; and 2) the trial court erred by failing to admit testimony regarding past and future medical expenses and unpaid medical bills into evidence.

More...