News The Shuford Law Firm Attorneys Dallas Texas

Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[06/21] Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman
District court's order issuing a stay of federal proceedings in an insurer's request for declaratory judgment, claiming that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor due to his disappearance in more than 350 medical malpractice claims, is reversed and remanded as it was an abuse of discretion to stay this action.

[06/17] Price v. Wolford
In the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA)'s appeal from the district court's order allotting part of a malpractice settlement to OHCA in full satisfaction of the lien, the order is reversed where the district court correctly construed Oklahoma law but erred in finding that the settling parties had proved by clear and convincing evidence that only $67,666.67 of the settlement could be attributed to medical care paid by Medicaid.

[06/17] Estate of Schneider v. Finmann
In a legal malpractice action alleging that defendants negligently advised decedent to transfer, or failed to advise decedent not to transfer, an insurance policy which resulted in an increased estate tax liability, the appellate division's affirmance of dismissal of the action is reversed where an attorney may be held liable for damages resulting from negligent representation in estate tax planning that causes enhanced estate tax liability.

[06/17] Martinez v. Cui
In plaintiff's suit against a first-year medical resident claiming that she was sexually assaulted during an examination, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court's evidentiary rulings were not error; and 2) the jury was correctly instructed on the shocks-the-conscious element as this standard applies to claims that an executive official's sexual assault violated the substantive due process clause.

[06/09] Anaya-Burgos v. Lasalvia-Prisco
In plaintiff's suit against an oncologist and others, claiming that the death of his wife was the result of defendants' negligent acts and omissions that induced her to purchase their "cancer vaccine" treatment and forego conventional cancer treatments, a grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is vacated and remanded as, plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence including expert testimony, from which a reasonable jury could have concluded - and did conclude - that defendants' breach of the standard of care towards the wife caused her untimely death by inducing her to choose their treatment with promises that it would cure her.

[05/26] Sandarg v. Dental Bd. of California
Superior court's denial of plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking reinstatement of his dental license, which was revoked by the Dental Board of California, is affirmed as the standard of proof for a petition to revoke a dental licentiate's probation is preponderance of the evidence.

[05/26] Wallace v. McGlothan
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit against a doctor for permanent injury to plaintiff's eye as a result of negligently performed LASIK surgery, district court's denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed as the evidence was sufficient to show that the doctor's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries and the doctor has not shown any perjury or discovery violations by the plaintiffs that would warrant reversal.

[05/20] Lockton v. O'Rourke
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, trial court's dismissal following demurrers by defendants is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) trial court properly sustained the demurrer on the ground that defendants did not continue to represent plaintiff on his claims against the defendants in the underlying case for a sufficient time to toll the statute of limitations; and 2) trial court's order denying an award of attorney fees to two attorneys is reversed.

[05/19] Pages-Ramirez v. Ramirez-Gonzalez
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit against an obstetrician and others claiming that the doctor caused catastrophic injuries to their son during his delivery, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded, as the district court abused its discretion when it refused to permit plaintiffs' expert to testify on the relevant standard of care and causation.

[05/17] Laclette v. Galindo
In plaintiffs' legal malpractice action against defendants, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is reversed as a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant attorney continued to represent plaintiff during the pendency of a settlement agreement in the underlying action so as to toll the limitations period in the malpractice action.

[05/12] Columbia Venture, LLC v. Dewberry & Davis, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against an independent contractor hired by FEMA to reassess flood elevation maps of an area, alleging professional malpractice and other claims for designating a large portion of plaintiff's property as part of the floodway, district court's order dismissing plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice is affirmed as the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) preempts plaintiff's state law claims under a theory of obstacle preemption where state law tort claims against FEMA's independent contractors would be an obstacle to the accomplishment of the primary purposes of the NFIA and section 4104.

[05/03] Borges v. Serano-Isern
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit against a doctor and a hospital, claiming that the doctor's negligence in his delay in calling for and performing the C-section resulted in numerous physical and neurological injuries to their daughter, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs have waived their claim that the district court erred in granting the Hospital's motion for summary judgment by their failure to present any developed argumentation with respect to the Hospital's liability; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the doctor breached his duty of care through delay in calling for and performing the C-section fails because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the doctor could or should have known, at the relevant time, that the daughter suffered from either Bradycardia or a cord prolapse.

More...