Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesattorneynegligencestatutemalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticesustained
plaintiffdamagesattorneynegligencestatutemalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice

Related Cases

Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 230 F.R.D. 317, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,837
View Case »
Smith v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 818, 520 N.Y.S.2d 195
View Case »
San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5941, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5453
View Case »
Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 716 F.Supp.2d 236
View Case »
Stern v. County Court In and For County of Grand, 773 P.2d 1074, 58 USLW 2042, 16 A.L.R.5th 882
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 179 N.W.2d 288

Facts

Charles L. Christy, the plaintiff, underwent surgery for a hiatus hernia and subsequently suffered from mental health issues, leading to multiple hospitalizations. After a series of electroshock treatments, he was discharged by his psychiatrist, Dr. Cranston, without proper evaluation or instructions. Following his discharge, Christy suffered severe burns in a fire, which led him to seek legal representation for a malpractice claim against the hospital and psychiatrist. However, his attorney failed to file the claim within the required two-year statute of limitations, prompting Christy to sue for legal malpractice.

Charles L. Christy, the plaintiff, underwent surgery for a hiatus hernia and subsequently suffered from mental health issues, leading to multiple hospitalizations.

Issue

Did the attorney's failure to file a medical malpractice claim within the statute of limitations constitute legal malpractice, and were the damages awarded by the jury excessive?

Did the attorney's failure to file a medical malpractice claim within the statute of limitations constitute legal malpractice, and were the damages awarded by the jury excessive?

Rule

In an action against an attorney for negligence, the client must prove the existence of the attorney-client relationship, the acts constituting negligence, that such acts were the proximate cause of the damage, and that the client would have been successful but for the attorney's negligence.

In an action against an attorney for negligence, the client must prove the existence of the attorney-client relationship, the acts constituting negligence, that such acts were the proximate cause of the damage, and that the client would have been successful but for the attorney's negligence.

Analysis

The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that an attorney-client relationship existed and that the attorney's negligence in failing to file the medical malpractice claim caused the client to lose his chance for recovery. The court also noted that the psychiatrist's negligent discharge of the plaintiff without proper evaluation was a direct cause of the injuries sustained. However, the court deemed the damages awarded by the jury to be excessive, given the plaintiff's lack of permanent impairment.

The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that an attorney-client relationship existed and that the attorney's negligence in failing to file the medical malpractice claim caused the client to lose his chance for recovery.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff but required a reduction of the damages awarded to $100,000 plus medical expenses, contingent upon the plaintiff's consent to the reduction.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff but required a reduction of the damages awarded to $100,000 plus medical expenses, contingent upon the plaintiff's consent to the reduction.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Charles L. Christy, prevailed in the case because the court upheld the jury's finding of negligence against the attorney for failing to file the medical malpractice claim.

The plaintiff, Charles L. Christy, prevailed in the case because the court upheld the jury's finding of negligence against the attorney for failing to file the medical malpractice claim.

You must be