Summary
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a legal malpractice action arising from an attorney’s alleged misinformation about the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation in the underlying medical malpractice case and reversed the summary judgment entered for the attorney and his law firm.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper when the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning causation in Reed's underlying medical malpractice claim.
- Whether the evidence could establish that Reed might have prevailed in the underlying medical malpractice action but for Schütz's alleged negligence.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because the record contained a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation in Reed's underlying medical malpractice case.
Key quotations
““Summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”” (117 So. 3d at 488)
““If material facts are conflicting, i.e., if facts permit different reasonable inferences to be drawn, or if facts even tend to prove material issues, then summary judgment may not be granted.”” (117 So. 3d at 488)
Factual background
Reed suffered a fall in a hospital restroom after a physical therapist failed to supervise her despite her high risk of falling and the hospital's supervision policies. She retained Schütz to pursue a medical malpractice claim against the hospital, but Schütz allegedly told her that the claim was subject to a four-year statute of limitations rather than the applicable two-year period. After the claim became time-barred, Reed brought a legal malpractice action, offering medical records and deposition testimony supporting causation and the underlying medical negligence.
Procedural history
Reed retained Schütz to pursue a medical malpractice claim arising from injuries sustained in a hospital fall. After Schütz withdrew and Reed's underlying medical malpractice claim became untimely, Reed sued Schütz for legal malpractice, alleging that Schütz misrepresented the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court entered final summary judgment for Schütz, and Reed timely appealed.
Remand instructions
The final summary judgment in favor of Schütz is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.