 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Biddle v. Maguire & Schneider12/31/2003
Judgment: Reversed and remanded.
. This appeal is taken from a final judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas granting appellees, Emery J. Leuchtag ("Leuchtag") and Maguire & Schneider, L.L.P., summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. In 1996, appellant, Cheryl A. Biddle, as the surviving spouse and administrator of the estate of Robert A. Biddle, retained appellees to represent her in a medical malpractice action against Mary Beth Williams, M.D., Robert L. Stader, M.D., Emergency Professional Services, Inc., and Trumbull Memorial Hospital. The case was scheduled for trial on January 8, 2001, but was continued until April 16, 2001. The record, however, shows that on March 30, 2001, appellant's attorney advised the trial court that the parties had settled the case. When neither appellant nor her attorney took any further action, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The trial court considered their motion, and on June 7, 2001, dismissed appellant's case.
. On June 26, 2002, appellant filed a complaint against appellees alleging that they had committed legal malpractice in representing her. She claimed that appellees had failed to keep her properly informed of the case's progress, and concealed the fact that they had advised the trial court the case was settled.
. Specifically, appellant maintained that after the court continued the January 2001 trial date, she did not hear from appellees until April 2001. At that time, she called Leuchtag after viewing the trial court's docket on the Internet and discovering a pretrial of which she was unaware. Leuchtag told appellant that the trial court had cancelled the pretrial before he had an opportunity to contact her. Three months later, on July 3, 2001, appellant again looked at the trial court's docket on the Internet and saw that the court had dismissed her case the previous month. Despite her repeated attempts to contact Leuchtag to ask him about the dismissal, appellant claimed that Leuchtag never returned any of her calls.
. After submitting an answer, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the statute of limitations barred appellant from pursuing a claim for legal malpractice because she did not file her complaint within one year after the cause of action had accrued. According to appellees, appellant should have filed her claim within one-year after the trial court dismissed the underlying case on June 7, 2001, as that was when litigation was at an end and the attorney-client relationship terminated.
. Appellant maintained that the accrual date in this case was July 3, 2001, the date she viewed the docket for a second time and learned the trial court had actually dismissed her medical malpractice case. Therefore, she argued that her claim was filed within one year after the cause of action accrued as the complaint was filed on June 26, 2002.
. On February 11, 2003, the trial court issued a decision granting summary judgment to appellees. In doing so, the court found that "the fact that the case was marked settled and dismissed, and she was not advised of such would have put her on notice that there was some problem or concern." The trial court concluded that the statute of limitations began running in April 2001, when appellant admittedly reviewed the court's docket for the first time and should have noticed the March 30, 2001 entry indicating that the parties had settled the case.
. From this decision granting appellees' motion for summary judgment, appe
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|