Professional Liability Monthly – October Edition is Now Available

Featured headlines in this edition of Professional Liability Monthly:

  • Plaintiff’s Accounting Malpractice Claim Dismissed
  • NJ Supreme Court Retaliation Decision “Mixed Bag” For Employers
  • District Court Addresses Facebook Posts Under Stored Communications Act
  • Court Finds Board-Certified Family Medicine Physician Is Not a “Similar Health Care Provider”
  • PA Supreme Court Rules MCARE Fund May Be Required to Make Multiple Payouts in Single Case
  • Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Suit for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
  • Appellate Court Finds Claim Sounds in Ordinary Negligence Rather Than Medical Malpractice
  • Pennsylvania’s Certificate of Merit Requirement in Federal Court
  • Court Permits Plaintiff to Discontinue Underlying Medical Malpractice Action and Sue His Attorneys Instead
  • Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Collect Attorneys’ Fees for Prosecuting Legal Malpractice Action
  • Sixth Circuit Addresses the Applicability of Exclusions

For a free copy of this month’s edition of Professional Liability Monthlyclick here.

To be added to our circulation list, where you will receive this publication for free each month via email, please contact Brian Biggie at [email protected].


2 Comments

  • Pingback: Cases for Professional Liability Monthly – October 2013 Edition | Professional Liability Matters

  • bc yim, 16th Wednesday 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Reply

    Legal Malpractice
    Court Permits Plaintiff to
    Discontinue Underlying Medical
    Malpractice Action and Sue His
    Attorneys Instead
    GRACE V. LAW, PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP
    ET AL.
    (N.Y. 4th Dept., July 19, 2013)

    Interesting case. But there is a very simple solution for the attorneys, their former client, and their carriers. Here’s the strategy: attorneys file an indemnity cross-complaint against the malpracticing physicians. The statute of limitations for the underlying med mal case does not apply in the indemnity claim, because it does not even commence until the indemnitees (alleged malpracticing attorneys) are required to pay the damages). Then the physician will have to step up to the plate in the indemnity case to defend himself. If the doctor defenses the med mal case, then the atty’s win because the underlying case was meritless all along. If the doctor loses the indemnity claim, then doctor pays the damages which in turn is passed on to the injured plaintiff in the legal mal case. Actually, the attorney defendants sit back and let the plaintiff fight it out w/ the malpractincing doctor. This makes the LPL carrier a “winner” too, because the brunt of the defense costs (experts, discovery, etc) will be carried by the malpracticing physician, and his med mal carrier to defend the med ml claims in the indemnity cross-claim. The attorney-defendants win either way; and if the client had a meritorious case, injured client wins too.

    This is also in keeping with the underlynig priciples in the indemnity claim– the true tortfeasor who caused the plaintiff’s damages should be called on to pay his fair share of the loss (probably all of it), not the attorneys who caused none of the injuries.


Leave a Comment