Free Professional Malpractice & Ethics case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser. | | Professional Malpractice & Ethics December 27, 2019 |
|
|
Table of Contents | Erickson v. Renda Professional Malpractice & Ethics Supreme Court of Texas | In re Comanche Turner Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Professional Malpractice & Ethics Supreme Court of Texas |
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | |
Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinions | Erickson v. Renda | Court: Supreme Court of Texas Docket: 18-0486 Opinion Date: December 20, 2019 Judge: Eva Guzman Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics | In this attorney malpractice case, the Supreme Court examined the reach of the Hughes tolling rule and rendered judgment dismissing the malpractice claim as untimely, holding that the malpractice claim was not tolled under Hughes, which applies when legal malpractice is committed in the prosecution or defense of a claim that results in litigation, because the legal advise at issue lacked the nexus required to come within the Hughes tolling rule. Plaintiff's malpractice suit arose from legal advice Defendant reportedly provided in the summer of 2003. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Hughes tolling does not apply to legal malpractice occurring in "mere transactional work." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) legal work only incidentally related to activities undertaken to prosecute or defend a claim is not encompassed within the Hughes paradigm; (2) the legal advice Defendant provided was, at best, incidental and tangentially related to ongoinglLitigation; and (3) therefore, Hughes tolling did not apply, and plaintiff's malpractice lawsuit was untimely. | | In re Comanche Turner | Court: Supreme Court of Texas Docket: 18-0102 Opinion Date: December 20, 2019 Judge: Debra Lehrmann Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Professional Malpractice & Ethics | In this health care liability action, the Supreme Court conditionally granted Claimant's petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order ruling that Claimant was not permitted to depose a health care provider before serving him with an expert report, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the Medical Liability Act categorically prohibited Claimant from deposing or obtaining documents from that provider. Claimant sued one health care provider, served an expert report meeting the requirements of the Act on that provider, and then sought to depose Dr. Jeffrey Sandate, another provider involved in the underlying incident and a nonparty in the action. The court of appeals ruled that Claimant may not depose Dr. Sandate before serving him with an expert report under the Act. The Supreme Court ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order, holding that the Act did not insulate Dr. Sandate from being deposed or producing documents in this case. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area. | Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|
|