Lairy v. Chandler

Decision Date16 June 2022
Docket Number2019-CT-01423-SCT
Citation341 So.3d 919
Parties Angela T. LAIRY, Turner & Associates, PLLC, Carolyn T. Karriem, and The Estate of Bennie L. Turner v. Lori CHANDLER
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: RANDOLPH WALKER, ANGELA TURNER FORD, BARBARA LEE CLARK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CHARLES M. MERKEL, JR., EDWARD P. CONNELL, JR., Clarksdale, ROBERT ALEXANDER CARSON, III, JOHN H. COCKE, Clarksdale, CORRIE SCHULER, Jackson

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MAXWELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. While driving a forklift at work, Lori Chandler was hit by another forklift and injured. She retained Turner & Associates to file a workers’ compensation claim. But Turner & Associates failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations. And worse than that, the firm's case manager engaged in a year-and-a-half-long cover-up, which included false assurances of settlement negotiations, fake settlement offers, and a forged settlement letter purporting to be from Chandler's former employer. Because of this professional negligence, Chandler filed a legal malpractice action.

¶2. Liability is not in dispute.1 So the only issue at trial was damages. The trial judge, sitting as fact-finder, concluded that Chandler had suffered a compensable work-related injury—an injury that caused her to lose her job and left her unemployed for nearly two years. Based on her hourly wage, the trial judge determined, had Turner & Associates timely filed Chandler's workers’ compensation claim, Chandler could have reasonably recovered $50,000 in disability benefits. So the trial judge awarded her $50,000 in compensatory damages. The trial judge also awarded Chandler $100,000 in punitive damages against the case manager due to her egregious conduct.

¶3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the punitive-damages award.2 But the court reversed and remanded the compensatory-damages award.3 Essentially, the Court of Appeals held that Chandler had failed to present sufficient medical evidence to support a $50,000 workers’ compensation claim.4

¶4. Were this a workers’ compensation case, we might agree with the Court of Appeals. But this is a legal malpractice case. And part of what Chandler lost, due to attorney negligence, was her ability to prove her work-related injury led to her temporary total disability. The Court of Appeals faulted Chandler for not providing evidence she sought medical treatment after May 2008. But the precise reason Chandler hired Turner & Associates in August 2008 was to navigate the workers’ compensation process, of which she was unfamiliar. And Turner & Associates’ case manager confirmed that part of her job—which she did not perform in Chandler's case—was to follow clients through the medical-treatment process.

¶5. Based on these particular circumstances, we find the Court of Appeals erred by applying exacting statutory requirements for a workers’ compensation claim to Chandler's common-law legal malpractice claim. Chandler was not seeking workers’ compensation benefits from her employer. She was seeking legal malpractice damages from her former legal representative. And she supported her damages claim with evidence that she suffered a compensable work-related injury, causing her to lose employment. The record supports the trial judge's finding that, had Turner & Associates timely filed her claim, she could have reasonably recovered $50,000 in disability benefits. These benefits were based on her average weekly wage and the amount of time she remained unemployed due to her injury.

¶6. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the issue of compensatory damages and reinstate the trial judge's $50,000 compensatory-damages award. Because this is the only issue for which Chandler sought certiorari review, we affirm the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ decision, which affirmed the punitive-damages award but reversed and remanded the grant of partial summary judgment against attorney Angela T. Lairy in her individual capacity.5

Background Facts & Procedural History

I. Work-Related Injury

¶7. Chandler worked as a forklift driver for Cooper Tire. In March 2008, her forklift was struck by another forklift, injuring her. Chandler went to the emergency room the next day. Her pain continued, so she followed up with her doctor. Her doctor placed her on sedentary work restrictions and prescribed physical therapy. Chandler returned to work at Cooper Tire that same month. But based on her physician-imposed restrictions, she was let go three days later.

¶8. Chandler discontinued physical therapy in May 2008 after she discovered she was pregnant and thus could not perform the prescribed exercises.

II. Turner & Associates’ Failure to File Claim and Fake Settlement Offers

¶9. Two months later, in August 2008, Chandler sought legal representation from Turner & Associates. At the time, Bennie Turner was the managing partner and sole owner. His daughter Angela T. Lairy, who is an attorney, contends that she worked for her father's firm as an independent contractor. His other daughter Carolyn T. Karriem, who is not an attorney, worked as a case manager. Chandler testified she met with Lairy at the initial meeting, and Lairy agreed to represent her. But Lairy and Karriem denied this. According to Lairy, she never worked on Chandler's case.

¶10. From our review, it appears that no one at Turner & Associates did any legitimate work on Chandler's case. And the statute of limitations ran without Chandler's workers’ compensation claim being filed. Chandler contacted Karriem about her claim in 2011. But instead of informing Chandler of the mistake, Karriem assured Chandler that Turner & Associates was actively negotiating a settlement with Chandler's former employer. Not only was this false, but Karriem actually conveyed a fake settlement offer of $25,000. Chandler rejected this. After that, Karriem falsely told Chandler that Cooper Tire had made a new settlement offer of $30,000. Chandler rejected this "offer" too. Over the next year, Karriem continued to make up false settlement offers of increasing amounts. During this time period, Bennie Turner died. And his daughter Lairy took over as managing partner of Turner & Associates. Lairy has denied any involvement with the fake settlement offers.

¶11. Finally, Chandler "accepted" a supposed offer to settle for $100,000. To make it look like a real settlement had been reached, Karriem drafted a fake settlement agreement, which Chandler signed. Karriem also forged a letter purporting to be from "Blake Berry" at Cooper Tire.

¶12. Six months then passed with Chandler receiving no money—only empty promises that the firm was working on finalizing the settlement. Finally, Chandler faxed Turner & Associates a letter of termination and sought help from another attorney. She also contacted Cooper Tire directly. It was then she learned there was no settlement offer because no claim had ever been filed on her behalf. She also discovered "Blake Berry" did not exist and every settlement document she had received from Karriem was bogus.

III. Chandler's Legal Malpractice Lawsuit

¶13. Chandler filed a legal malpractice action against Turner & Associates, Bennie Turner's estate, Lairy, and Karriem. The trial judge granted Chandler partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to all defendants. And a successor trial judge6 held a bench trial on damages. He awarded Chandler $50,000 in actual damages against all defendants jointly. He awarded $100,000 in punitive damages against Karriem.

¶14. The defendants appealed, and this Court assigned their appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals made three rulings:

(1) The trial judge reversibly erred by granting partial summary judgment against Lairy because of genuine fact disputes as to whether Lairy was a member of the PLLC or independent contractor and whether Lairy actually worked on Chandler's case.
(2) The trial judge reversibly erred by awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages because Chandler failed to support her damages claim with substantial evidence. Specifically, Chandler did not provide medical evidence to support her being totally temporarily disabled after May 2008.
(3) The trial judge did not err by awarding punitive damages against Karriem in the amount of $100,000 because Karriem waived her claim that the trial judge failed to consider her net worth.

Lairy , ––– So.3d at –––– – ––––, 2021 WL 4566740, at **4-8.

¶15. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on the first two issues and affirmed on the third. Id. We granted Chandler's petition for a writ of certiorari, which sought review of only one issue—the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the compensatory-damages award. Thus, our opinion focuses solely on this issue. We do not disturb the other two rulings.

Discussion

¶16. This Court has held that an attorney's failure to file an action within the prescribed statute of limitations is negligence as a matter of law. Byrd v. Bowie , 933 So. 2d 899, 904 (Miss. 2006) (citing Hickox ex rel. Hickox v. Holleman , 502 So. 2d 626, 635 (Miss. 1987), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore , 863 So. 2d 31, 35-36 (Miss. 2004) ; Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc. , 186 So. 2d 756, 759 (Miss. 1966) ). But that does not mean the former client automatically recovers damages. Such "negligence is actionable only where it is the proximate cause of the damages complained of ... [, which] are usually the value of the claim lost or judgment suffered as an alleged result of the attorney's negligence ...." Thompson , 186 So. 2d at 759 (quoting 45 A.L.R. 2d § 5 (1956)).

¶17. This proximate-causation requirement is sometimes referred to as "the trial-within-a-trial test." E.g. , Trigg v. Farese , 266 So. 3d 611, 621 (Miss. 2018). And it requires the former client to show that, "but for the negligence of the attorney, the client would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of an action." Thompson , 186 So. 2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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