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

settlementdamagesattorneynegligenceverdicttestimonymalpracticelegal malpracticeduty of care
damagesattorneyverdictmalpracticeduty of care

Related Cases

Kourouvacilis v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 521, 841 N.E.2d 1273
View Case »
Herbits v. Constitution Indem. Co. of Philadelphia, 279 Mass. 539, 181 N.E. 723
View Case »
McNeary v. American Cyanamid Co., 105 Wash.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845
View Case »
In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, 93 F.Supp.2d 1348, 2000-2 Trade Cases P 72,981
View Case »
Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 230 F.R.D. 317, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,837
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Waldman v. Levine, 544 A.2d 683, 78 A.L.R.4th 703

Facts

Beatrice Pratt died shortly after giving birth, and her mother, Essie L. Swann, retained attorneys Marvin Waldman and Daniel Steven to file a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and physicians involved. After a series of missteps, including failing to secure necessary expert testimony, the attorneys recommended settling the case for minimal expenses, which Swann reluctantly accepted. Following the settlement, Swann sued her former attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they had breached their duty by not adequately preparing her case.

Beatrice Pratt died shortly after giving birth, and her mother, Essie L. Swann, retained attorneys Marvin Waldman and Daniel Steven to file a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and physicians involved.

Issue

Did the former attorneys breach their duty of care to the client by failing to consult with necessary medical experts, and was the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the current attorney proper?

Did the former attorneys breach their duty of care to the client by failing to consult with necessary medical experts, and was the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the current attorney proper?

Rule

The standard of care for attorneys in medical malpractice cases requires them to exercise the degree of reasonable care and skill expected of members of the legal profession under similar circumstances, including consulting with appropriate medical experts.

The standard of care for attorneys in medical malpractice cases requires them to exercise the degree of reasonable care and skill expected of members of the legal profession under similar circumstances, including consulting with appropriate medical experts.

Analysis

The court found that the former attorneys failed to meet the standard of care by not consulting with an OB/GYN specialist and an economist, which was necessary for adequately preparing the medical malpractice case. The jury was entitled to conclude that this failure constituted negligence, as it directly impacted the client's ability to pursue her claim effectively. The court also ruled that the third-party complaint against the current attorney was properly dismissed because the injury had already occurred before the current attorney's involvement.

The court found that the former attorneys failed to meet the standard of care by not consulting with an OB/GYN specialist and an economist, which was necessary for adequately preparing the medical malpractice case.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the client, holding that the former attorneys were negligent and that the dismissal of the third-party complaint was appropriate.

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the client, holding that the former attorneys were negligent and that the dismissal of the third-party complaint was appropriate.

Who won?

Essie L. Swann prevailed in the case because the jury found that her former attorneys had been negligent in their representation, leading to her damages.

Essie L. Swann prevailed in the case because the jury found that her former attorneys had been negligent in their representation, leading to her damages.

You must be