Robert Loblaw’s Decision of the Day blog, on appellate decisions, has this update (and somewhat longer write-up) on a case briefly noted by guestblogger Jason Barney in this space in October:
Ratliff v. Stewart, 06-61018 (5th Cir., Dec. 6, 2007)
The facts in this Fifth Circuit decision reflect rather poorly on the practice of law in the Southern District of Mississippi. The underlying case arises from injuries that plaintiff Sarah Ratliff allegedly suffered from the drug Stadol. Although Ratliff eventually settled her claims, her litigation took some strange turns, resulting in this appeal.
To start, Ratliff’s attorney named the wrong doctor as a defendant. The attorney knew that Ratliff had been prescribed Stadol by a Dr. Stewart with an office in McComb, Mississippi. Without investigating further, the lawyer found a defendant who fit the bill: Dr. Lawrence Stewart. But Lawrence Stewart had never prescribed Stadol to Sarah Ratliff. Although he did have a patient named Sarah Ratliff, she insisted that she had not filed a lawsuit against him.
As it turns out, the plaintiff had been treated by Lawrence Stewart’s father, Edsel Ford Stewart, who by this point had passed away. But Lawrence’s protests fell on deaf ears, as did his motion to dismiss, complete with an affidavit stating that he had never treated the plaintiff. After filing their opposition to this motion, the plaintiff’s attorneys finally bothered to check with their client and, lo and behold, she told them that they had sued the wrong guy. Just for fun, the attorneys waited another month before confessing error and letting Lawrence off the hook.
Did they learn from their mistake? Not really, as they then filed a suit against the estate of “the elder Lawrence Stewart.”
Could it get any worse? Maybe a little. Five months after being dismissed from the case and nine days after the rest of Ratliff’s case was reassigned to a different judge, Lawrence Stewart’s attorney sent a letter to follow up on an earlier request for attorney fees. But he sent it to the old judge. And, in an even bigger blunder, the old judge decided to award attorney fees for a case that was no longer on his docket.
The mess eventually got cleaned up: the old judge vacated his order and the new judge adopted it. Ratliff appealed, but the Fifth Circuit rejects his arguments and largely affirms the fee award.
2 Comments
In all fairness, when you have a guy with the name Edsel Ford involved, you have to assume a screw-up or two.
Great decision for the victims of lawsuit abuse, however, narrow and technical it seems. Most medmal cases are weak. Having to pay legal fees of doctors would improve the quality of medmal claims.
However, I am missing elements usually required.
1) The 21 day take backsies in the pro-lawyer 1993 revision of Rule 11. The lawyer must have notice of the mistake and a chance to drop the lawsuit. The lawyer waited a year to ask his client which doctor treated her. However, once she told him, he dropped the case. When does the 21 days start, when he knew, or when he should have known?
2) An improper motive, rather than the desire to aggressively pursue the client’s rights. The court called it an improper purpose to have “an inexplicable obstinacy.” It set aside the usual malice, harassment, and bad faith definition.
The majority of medmal plaintiff lawyers have inexplicable obstinacy, to still pursue mostly garbage claims. Obstinacy serves lawsuit lotto playing. Eventually, a case may pay.