Griswold v. Kilpatrick, 46706-9-I.

Decision Date23 July 2001
Docket NumberNo. 46706-9-I.,46706-9-I.
Citation27 P.3d 246,107 Wn. App. 757,107 Wash. App. 757
PartiesJoyce GRISWOLD, individually, and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Virgil H. Griswold, Appellant, v. Richard B. KILPATRICK and Kathleen K. Kilpatrick, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, and Richard B. Kilpatrick, P.S., a Washington professional services corporation, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Roger Keith Anderson, Seattle, for Appellant.

Stephen John Sirianni, Sirianni & Youtz, Seattle, for Respondents.

BECKER, A.C.J.

A plaintiff settled a medical malpractice suit for 1.2 million dollars. She then sued her attorney on the theory that the settlement figure would have been higher but for the attorney's delay in initiating settlement negotiations. Because the evidence adduced to prove this theory was entirely speculative, the trial court properly dismissed the case on summary judgment.

In November of 1992, Virgil Griswold underwent a surgical procedure, a carotid endarterectomy, at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. The purpose of this procedure is to open up the carotid artery which supplies oxygenated blood to the brain. Within 24 hours of the surgery, Griswold had a stroke, recognized as a potential complication of the procedure. The stroke caused brain damage and paralysis in Griswold's left side.

In 1993, Griswold's wife, Joyce, hired attorney Richard Kilpatrick to represent the couple in a claim for medical malpractice against the University of Washington and the individual surgeons. They alleged that the University medical staff was negligent by not acting immediately upon detection of neurological abnormalities in the hours following surgery. Kilpatrick told the Griswolds that he would want to bring in another attorney to act as lead counsel, subject to their approval, and they agreed. They signed a fee agreement in the fall of 1993. Griswold underwent rehabilitation treatment, both inpatient and outpatient, at the University for several months thereafter, and the family instructed Kilpatrick not to take any steps against the University while he was under the University's care.

By the spring of 1994, Griswold had been discharged from the University's care. Kilpatrick obtained his medical records from the University. In November, Kilpatrick filed a claim for damages with Washington's Department of Risk Management. In the summer of 1995, after unsuccessfully trying to persuade other attorneys to take the case, Kilpatrick associated Mark Alan Johnson as lead counsel. Johnson filed suit on behalf of the Griswolds a few months later. He associated attorney James Holman and together they expeditiously retained expert witnesses and conducted discovery.

In June 1996, Virgil Griswold suffered a heart attack.

In September 1996, mediation produced a settlement agreement. The Griswolds released the defendants in exchange for 1.2 million dollars.

Virgil Griswold died in January 1997. In 1999 Joyce Griswold filed a legal malpractice suit against Kilpatrick on behalf of herself and her husband's estate. She alleged that the case would have settled for a larger amount if Kilpatrick had prosecuted the case more energetically, so that it would have been in a settlement posture before Mr. Griswold had the heart attack. Kilpatrick moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Kilpatrick's motion and dismissed the case. Griswold appeals. When reviewing an order of summary judgment, the appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). The court considers all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Wilson, 98 Wash.2d at 437,656 P.2d 1030.

Liability for legal malpractice, as for other torts, requires proof of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damage. Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 260-61, 830 P.2d 646 (1992). Kilpatrick's motion for summary judgment placed at issue only the element of causation. Therefore, for purposes of summary judgment, it is assumed that Kilpatrick breached the standard of care by delay in the prosecution of the case. The inquiry is whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding that the delay proximately caused damage to the Griswolds.

In legal malpractice actions, proximate cause is determined by the "but for" test. Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wash.2d 254, 263, 704 P.2d 600 (1985). Griswold argues that but for the delay, the case would have settled before her husband's heart attack, and for a considerably larger sum.

Her proof on both these points is insufficient. To prove that the case would have settled before the June 1996 heart attack, she simply assumes the result: that the University would have approached settlement negotiations in exactly the same way, but earlier, if only the preparation of the plaintiff's case had been completed earlier. Griswold, who bears the burden of proof, offers no declarations from University personnel stating that the University would have been ready and willing to mediate at an earlier date than it actually did.

Griswold also lacks proof that her husband's heart attack reduced the settlement value of the case. The only evidence in support of this assertion is the testimony of lawyer Gerald Palm, the Griswolds' expert witness. Palm offered an opinion that the case was worth at least 1.5 million dollars before the heart attack. He conceded in deposition that he had not been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Boguch v. Landover Corp., 62446-6-I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • December 21, 2009
    ...Gates Ellis, LLP, 135 Wash.App. 859, 147 P.3d 600 (2006), review denied, 161 Wash.2d 1011, 166 P.3d 1217 (2007); Griswold v. Kilpatrick, 107 Wash.App. 757, 27 P.3d 246 (2001); Ahmann-Yamane, L.L.C. v. Tabler, 105 Wash. App. 103, 19 P.3d 436 (2001); Sherry v. Diercks, 29 Wash.App. 433, 628 P......
  • Exotics Hawaii v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, 27489.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • November 21, 2007
    ..."not explain why the settlements were fair and reasonable for each of the [plaintiffs]") (emphasis added); Griswold v. Kilpatrick, 107 Wash.App. 757, 27 P.3d 246, 248-49 (2001) (the plaintiff's expert testimony that, but for the delay in prosecuting the case, the claim would have settled fo......
  • Williams v. State , 924
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 11, 2011
  • City of Cle Elum v. Owens & Sons, Inc., 25761-4-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 8, 2008
    ...speculative expert opinions will not be admitted. Miller v. Likins, 109 Wn. App. 140, 148, 34 P.3d 835 (2001); Griswold v. Kilpatrick, 107 Wn. App. 757, 761-62, 27 P.3d 246 (2001). Such opinions cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Watters v. Aberdeen Recreation, Inc., 75 Wn. Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT