Brizak v. Needle
571 A.2d 975, 239 N.J. Super. 415 (1990)
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a duty to diligently investigate a client's potential medical malpractice claim and to warn the client about the statute of limitations, even if the attorney holds an erroneous belief about the discovery rule's application, and a jury may find such negligence without expert legal testimony when the attorney's investigative or warning failures are within the common understanding of laypersons.
Facts:
- On May 17, 1981, Norma Brizak fell in her home and suffered a complete and comminuted fracture of her left humerus.
- Dr. Mohammad Shafi treated Norma Brizak by placing her arm in a hanging cast, rather than performing open reduction surgery, and the fractured bone ends never united.
- Dr. Shafi last treated Norma Brizak for the fractured humerus on July 10, 1981.
- In late October 1982, Norma Brizak met attorney Emanuel Needle and mentioned her ongoing suffering from the unhealed arm, complaining she could not raise it above her shoulder.
- Norma Brizak formally retained Emanuel Needle on December 5, 1983, to investigate a potential medical malpractice claim against Dr. Shafi.
- Needle, through his associate, was aware early in the representation that Norma Brizak's humerus had not fully healed under Dr. Shafi's treatment and that a hanging cast was used instead of pins.
- Needle's investigation primarily involved obtaining emergency room records in May 1984 and informally consulting a radiologist friend, Dr. Michael Och, and an orthopedist, Dr. Michael Silverstein, neither of whom supported a malpractice claim.
- Needle did not obtain Norma Brizak's X-rays or Dr. Shafi's complete office records, which contained an entry discussing the need for an open reduction.
- In June 1985, Needle allegedly informed Norma Brizak by phone that she had 'no case' and did not advise her to seek other counsel or warn her about the impending statute of limitations deadline.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma Brizak and George Brizak filed a complaint against Emanuel Needle in the trial court, alleging legal malpractice for failure to timely file a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Mohammad Shafi.
- The jury returned special interrogatories, finding Emanuel Needle negligent in his representation of Norma Brizak, that his negligence was a proximate cause of Norma Brizak's failure to timely sue Dr. Shafi, and awarded Norma Brizak $35,000 in damages.
- Emanuel Needle appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney have a duty to diligently investigate a client's potential medical malpractice claim and warn the client about the statute of limitations, even when the attorney mistakenly believes the 'discovery rule' defers accrual until concrete expert proof is obtained, and can a jury find such negligence without expert legal testimony when the attorney's failure to investigate or warn is within common understanding?
Opinions:
Majority - Brody, J.A.D.
Yes, an attorney has a duty to diligently investigate a client's potential medical malpractice claim and warn the client about the statute of limitations, even if the attorney holds an erroneous belief about the discovery rule's application, and a jury can find such negligence without expert legal testimony when the attorney's failure to investigate or warn is within common understanding. The court first affirmed the trial judge's finding that Norma Brizak's medical malpractice claim against Dr. Shafi accrued on December 5, 1983, when she engaged Needle, because by then she knew her unhealed fracture 'may be' attributable to Dr. Shafi's faulty treatment, per the 'discovery rule' articulated in Tevis v. Tevis. The court rejected Needle's contention that the limitations period does not run until a physician provides concrete proof of medical malpractice, citing Graves v. Church & Dwight Co. for this established principle. The court held that Needle was negligent in his representation, specifically for his incorrect belief regarding the statute of limitations accrual and his failure to warn Norma Brizak that her claim could be time-barred sooner. The court found no reasonable basis in existing law for Needle's belief that accrual was deferred until expert proof was obtained. Furthermore, the court determined that an attorney has a basic duty to investigate facts, formulate strategy, and file necessary actions, as established in Passanante v. Yormark. Expert legal testimony was not required to establish Needle's negligence because his duty of care concerning the statute of limitations was so basic, and the inadequacy of his investigation (e.g., failing to obtain X-rays or Dr. Shafi's office records, relying on unqualified or informally consulted doctors) was within the common understanding of laypersons. Finally, the court concluded that Needle's negligence, including his inadequate investigation, failure to warn of the limitations problem, and failure to suggest seeking another attorney, was a proximate cause of Norma Brizak's inability to timely sue Dr. Shafi, consistent with an attorney's duty to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation (RPC 1.16(d)).
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial aspects of attorney malpractice, particularly in the context of the 'discovery rule' and the necessity of expert testimony. It reinforces the attorney's affirmative duty to diligently investigate claims and provide accurate advice on statutes of limitations, even if it requires challenging their own incorrect legal interpretations. The decision's most significant impact is its articulation of circumstances where expert legal testimony is not required, lowering a potential barrier for plaintiffs in legal malpractice claims where the attorney's breach of duty is considered 'obvious' or within common knowledge. This provides a clear standard for judges to determine when such cases can proceed without expert testimony, which can significantly influence the litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants in future legal malpractice actions.
