 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chapman v. Bearfield8/16/2005
Background
Plaintiffs retained Defendant to file a medical malpractice suit on their behalf. The malpractice case arose out of the medical treatment and death of William Chapman, husband of plaintiff Cathy L. Chapman, and father of plaintiffs Brandon Chapman, Kaylan L. Chapman, and Dana L. Chapman. Defendant filed a complaint on Plaintiffs' behalf in April of 2001 alleging that William Chapman died as a result of pulmonary embolus, an event which the complaint alleged would have been prevented but for medical negligence. In June of 2002, an agreed order was entered allowing Defendant to amend the complaint in the medical negligence action. Defendant then filed an amended complaint on Plaintiffs' behalf alleging that William Chapman's death "was, in fact, not the result of a pulmonary embolus," but was caused by "gastrointestinal upset, agonal emesis and aspiration, an asphyxial death with no cardiac contribution and no contribution by the non-substantiated pulmonary thromboembolus to the left lower lobe."
Plaintiffs became dissatisfied with Defendant's representation, retained other counsel, and filed this suit against Defendant in July of 2004 alleging legal malpractice for, among other things, alleging in the amended complaint "that there were no cardiac contributions and that no pulmonary embolus was involved in [William Chapman's] death." Plaintiffs also sought a stay of the legal malpractice suit pending final resolution of the underlying medical malpractice action.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment supported by his own expert witness affidavit opining that he was familiar with "the standard of care required of attorneys located in the upper East Tennessee area" and that he and the attorneys under his direction did not fall below or deviate from the standard of care. Plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment by filing the expert witness affidavit of attorney Richard L. Duncan. Mr. Duncan stated in his affidavit that he was "familiar with the standard of care for attorneys in medical malpractice cases in Tennessee." Mr. Duncan's affidavit also stated that he had reviewed documents including specified pleadings and "expert witness affidavits submitted by [Defendant]..." and opined that Defendant breached the standard of care by repudiating in the amended complaint a theory supported by the evidence. Mr. Duncan's affidavit did not have attached to it the documents referred to by Mr. Duncan in his affidavit. On October 5, 2004, only two days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed his amended affidavit in which he referred to specific medical records and written expert reports. Defendant attached copies of some, but not all, of the documents referenced in his amended affidavit.
The Trial Court heard argument on the motion for summary judgment on October 7, 2004. At the hearing, Plaintiffs requested additional time to supplement their expert affidavit. On October 8, 2004, the day after the hearing, but before the Trial Court rendered its decision on October 18, 2004, Plaintiffs filed Mr. Duncan's amended expert affidavit with copies of the documents referenced therein attached. Mr. Duncan's revised affidavit also stated that he was "familiar with the standard of care for attorneys practicing medical malpractice cases in Tennessee... including upper East Tennessee and other similar communities in Tennessee."
The Trial Court entered its order October 18, 2004, granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The October 18 order, inter alia, denied Plaintiffs' oral motion to supplement their expert affidavit and refused to consider Mr. Duncan's amended affidavit filed by Plaintiffs on October 8,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|