INSIDE THIS ISSUE: SPECIAL POINTS OF INTEREST: racy), fundoscope (used to gain a two‐dimensional view of the back of the eye), or a biomicro‐ scope (a slit lamp to enlarge the eye’s interior structures). Id., at 64‐65. Diseases that are also discoverable by proper optomet‐ ric examination include brain tumors, diabetes, kidney disor‐ ders, hypertension and infec‐ tions. Id. at 66. Duties of Optometrists The following deviations from the standard of care my subject the optometrist to liability: fail‐ ure to obtain informed consent, failure to take accurate history, failure to conduct appropriate examinations, failure to recog‐ nize pathological disease, failure to recognize cataracts, amblyo‐ pia, strabismus, nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, Professional liability claims are occasionally brought against optometrists when eye damage or loss follows optometric care. We review here a summary of the status of this litigation. Three specialties address eye healthcare. An optometrist ex‐ amines eyes for refractive error, recognizes (but does not treat) diseases of the eye, and fills prescriptions for eyeglasses and contact lenses. An optometrist’s scope of practice differs from opticians and ophthalmologists. The optician is an artisan quali‐ fied to shape lenses, fill prescrip‐ tions, and fit frames. An oph‐ thalmologist is a physician who specializes in the medical and surgical management of eye disease and injury. See William‐ son v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 486, 75 S. Ct. 461, 463 (1955). Optometric Scope of Practice Optometry is a branch of health care that deals with the diagno‐ sis and measurement of the optical system including the prescription of certain medicines and corrective lenses. Sam A. Macke, Negligence of Optome‐ trist, 16 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 49, 56 (1992). (In other words, optometrists treat vision disorders; ophthalmologists, on the other hand, treat disorders of the eye itself.) Id. In evaluat‐ ing standard of care compliance, optometric examinations should include the following: taking of a history, performance of visual acuity measurements, use of a ophthalmoscope¹ to examine the interior portion of the eyes, use of a phoropter to examine the retina, subjective examination of the eye, use of a muscle balance examination to evaluate near and distant vision, and a glauco‐ ma² test. Id., at 62‐63. Examina‐ tions may also employ a tono‐ meter (used to measure in‐ traocular pressure), retinoscope (used to measure vision accu‐ SURVEY OF OPTOMETRIC MALPRACTICE DEVELOPMENTS , BY THOMAS D. JENSEN, ESQ. WORKING WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: TIPS THAT ARE NOT IN THE CIVIL RULES, BY: LOUIE CASTORIA, ESQ., AND FREDERICK J. FISHER, J.D., CCP Insurance defense attorneys inhabit a confusing world in which even the “routine case” may need an expert witness for trial or a consultant to help with an early evaluation for settle‐ ment purposes. The legal prece‐ dents, regulations, and such don’t often say what the profes‐ sion’s standard of care in the community is in the exact situa‐ tion. For the past six years I have been writing a quarterly column on avoiding errors and omissions (“E&O”) exposures for National Underwriter Property & Casualty 360 magazine and its predeces‐ sor, American Agent & Broker. The column explains to insurance professionals the looking‐glass world that we lawyers inhabit, and in which brokers and agents occasionally find themselves. Looking back on those columns, there are themes that emerge from the cautionary tales of ac‐ tual court decisions over those years. WINTER 2017 VOLUME 9 ISSUE 1 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEFENSE QUARTERLY BOARD MEMBERS PICTURED 5 COMMITTEE LEADERS FEATURED 6 ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER CASE ‐ LAW UPDATE 7 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 8 OUR 2016 ‐ 2017 SPONSOR: • Eighth Annual Meeting Plans are Underway— Contact Christine Jensen To Get Involved • Two Amicus Cases are Pending Decision • Energetic Board Meeting Held in January in Phoenix • Industry Members: Men‐ tion PLDF to Your Panel Counsel Continued on next page Continued on page 4 presbyopia, or renal detech- ment, 3 failure to prescribe or fit proper correcve lenses leading to falls, vehicular collisions, or
Transcript
I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E :
S P E C I A L P O I N T S O F I N T E R E S T :
racy),fundoscope(usedtogainatwo‐dimensional view of thebackof theeye),orabiomicro‐scope(aslit lamptoenlargetheeye’s interiorstructures). Id.,at64‐65. Diseases that are alsodiscoverablebyproperoptomet‐ric examination include braintumors, diabetes, kidney disor‐ders, hypertension and infec‐tions.Id.at66.
DutiesofOptometristsThe following deviations fromthe standardofcaremy subjectthe optometrist to liability: fail‐ure toobtain informedconsent,failure to take accurate history,failure to conduct appropriateexaminations, failure to recog‐nizepathologicaldisease, failureto recognize cataracts, amblyo‐pia,strabismus,nearsightedness,farsightedness, astigmatism,presbyopia, or retinal detach-ment,³ failure to prescribe or fit proper corrective lenses leadingto falls, vehicular collisions, or
Professional liability claims areoccasionally brought againstoptometristswhen eye damageor loss follows optometric care.We review here a summary ofthestatusofthislitigation.Three specialties address eyehealthcare. An optometrist ex‐amineseyes forrefractiveerror,recognizes (but does not treat)diseases of the eye, and fillsprescriptions for eyeglasses andcontactlenses.Anoptometrist’sscope of practice differs fromopticians and ophthalmologists.The optician is an artisan quali‐fiedtoshapelenses,fillprescrip‐tions, and fit frames. An oph‐thalmologist is a physicianwhospecializes in the medical andsurgical management of eyediseaseand injury. SeeWilliam‐son v. LeeOptical Co., 348 U.S.483, 486, 75 S. Ct. 461, 463(1955).OptometricScopeofPractice
sis and measurement of theoptical system including theprescriptionofcertainmedicinesand corrective lenses. Sam A.Macke, Negligence of Optome‐trist, 16 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts3d 49, 56 (1992). (In otherwords,optometrists treat visiondisorders; ophthalmologists, onthe other hand, treat disordersoftheeyeitself.)Id.Inevaluat‐ingstandardofcarecompliance,optometric examinations shouldincludethefollowing:takingofahistory, performance of visualacuity measurements, use of aophthalmoscope¹toexaminetheinteriorportionof theeyes,useof a phoropter to examine theretina,subjectiveexaminationoftheeye,useofamusclebalanceexamination to evaluate nearanddistantvision,andaglauco‐ma²test.Id.,at62‐63.Examina‐tions may also employ a tono‐meter (used to measure in‐traocular pressure), retinoscope(used to measure vision accu‐
S U R V E Y O F O P T O M E T R I C M A L P R A C T I C E D E V E L O P M E N T S ,B Y T H O M A S D . J E N S E N , E S Q .
W O R K I N G W I T H E X P E R T W I T N E S S E S : T I P S T H A T A R E N O TI N T H E C I V I L R U L E S , B Y : L O U I E C A S T O R I A , E S Q . , A N DF R E D E R I C K J . F I S H E R , J . D . , C C P
Insurance defense attorneysinhabit a confusing world inwhich even the “routine case”mayneedanexpertwitnessfortrialoraconsultanttohelpwithan early evaluation for settle‐mentpurposes.Thelegalprece‐dents, regulations, and suchdon’toftensaywhattheprofes‐sion’s standard of care in the
community is in the exact situa‐tion.For the past six years I havebeenwriting a quarterly columnonavoidingerrorsandomissions(“E&O”) exposures for NationalUnderwriterProperty& Casualty360magazine and its predeces‐sor, American Agent & Broker.Thecolumnexplainstoinsurance
professionals the looking‐glassworld that we lawyers inhabit,and inwhichbrokers and agentsoccasionally find themselves.Looking back on those columns,there are themes that emergefrom the cautionary tales of ac‐tual court decisions over thoseyears.
W I N T E R 2 0 1 7
V O L U M E 9 I S S U E 1
P R O F E S S I O N A L L I A B I L I T YD E F E N S E Q U A R T E R L Y
B O A R D M E M B E R S P I C T U R E D
5
C O M M I T T E E L E A D E R S F E A T U R E D
6
A R C H I T E C T A N D E N G I N E E R C A S E ‐L A W U P D A T E
7
P R E S I D E N T ’ S M E S S A G E
8
O U R 2 0 1 6 ‐ 2 0 1 7 S P O N S O R :
• EighthAnnualMeeting
PlansareUnderway—
ContactChristineJensen
ToGetInvolved
• TwoAmicusCasesare
PendingDecision
• EnergeticBoardMeeting
HeldinJanuaryinPhoenix
• IndustryMembers:Men‐
tionPLDFtoYourPanel
Counsel
Continuedonnextpage
Continuedonpage4
presbyopia, or retinal detech-ment,3 failure to prescribe or fitproper corrective lenses leadingto falls, vehicular collisions, or
cornealdamage, failuretoapplytopicalpharmaceuti‐calsolutionsproperly,failuretorefer,failuretotimelydiagnose, failure to provide continuing care, or at‐tempting to provide medical diagnoses beyond theoptometrist’s scope of practice. Id., at 83‐83. Op‐tometristshaveaduty to refer tomedical specialistswhen theydiscover pathology requiring carebeyondtheir scope of practice. See, e.g., Tempchin v.Sampson,277A.2d67(Md.App.1971)(involvingfail‐uretodiagnoseuveitis leadingtoblindness);Steelev.United States, 463 F. Supp. 321 (D. Alaska 1978)(involving delayed referral to ophthalmologist result‐ing in eye loss). With respect to theprescription ofpharmaceuticals to treat conditions within the op‐tometrist’sscopeofcare,theoptometristisobligatedtochoosethecorrectmedication,andtocloselymoni‐tor thepatient’s reaction to thedrug. Macke,supra,at71‐72.As in any professional liability action, plaintiffmustestablish the standard of care. See McCarter v.Lawton,44So.3d342(La.App.2010)(involvingfailuretoperformdilatedeyeexaminations).Anoptometristmust exercise the degree of skill expected of anop‐tometrist acting under the same or similar circum‐stances. Morrisonv.MacNamara,407A.2d555,561(D.C.App.1979).
ExpertTestimonyDue to some overlap between the optometric andophthalmologicalprofessions,anumberofcaseshaveevaluatedwhetheroneprofessionmaytestifyagainsttheother. Ingeneral,ophthalmologistsmaynotpro‐vide standard of care opinion testimony against op‐tometrists. Bates v. Gilbert, 736 N.W.2d 566, 571(Mich. 2007) (finding that ophthalmology is not the“samehealthprofession”asoptometrysoaffidavitofmerit was ineffective); Evans v. Griswold, 935 P.2d165,169 (Idaho1997) (noting that theophthalmolo‐gist testifiedhewasnot familiarwith theoptometricSOC).Ophthalmologistsmay,however,testifyaboutcausa‐tion in optometricmalpractice cases. See Ribeiro v.Rhode IslandEye Institute, (R.I.2016) (involvingdelayinreactingtoretinaldetachmentrisk).Theymayalsotestify in optometric failure‐to‐refer cases. Christo‐phersonv.Lenscrafters,Inc.,2009N.Y.Slip.Op.30593(Sup. Ct.March 13, 2009) (involving ophthalmologistwhoopined that referraldelaydidnotcauseadverseoutcome). InMoss v.Miller, 625N.E.2d 1044, 1054(Ill.App.1993) the courtallowedanophthalmologistto testify about the optometrist’s referral error ongroundsthatphysicianswhoarenotcapableofprovid‐ingnecessarytreatmentshouldnotbepreferredoverthosewhoknow“areferralshouldbemade”).Similarly,optometristsmaynotprovideexpertopin‐ion standard of care testimony againstophthalmolo‐gists. SeeDavisv.Webb,246 S.W.3d768,776 (Tex.App. 2008) (concurring opinion questioned whether
thesameoutcomeshouldoccur“where theoptome‐tristiswelltrainedinpost‐operativetreatment”).YetitwasalsoheldinTexas(whichhasaspecialstatutorytest) that a therapeutic optometrist is held to thesame SOC as an ophthalmologist. See Whittley v.Heston,954S.W.2d119,123(Tex.App.1997)(addingthat a testifying expert cannot establish the SOC bysimply stating the course of action she or hewouldtake insimilarcircumstances). SeealsoDavisv.U.S.,2012WL 424887 *6 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (ruling that op‐tometristmay be qualified to give SOC expert testi‐mony in an ophthalmologymalpractice case for pa‐tients“whohaverecentlyreceivedcataractsurgery”).Although expert testimony ordinarily is required toestablish standardof carebreach and causation, the“commonknowledge”or“obviousoccurrence”excep‐tion to the rulemayapply. SeeHeimerv.Privratsky,434N.W.2d357,361(N.D.1989)(involvingtoxicsub‐stanceplacedineyewhilefittingcontactlens).
OtherEvidentiaryIssuesIn states involvingmedical review panel findings ofmalpractice, an optometristmay not rely on conclu‐sory,mere restatementsofpleadingdenials toavoidpatient summary judgmentmotions. SeeScripturev.Roberts, 51 N.E.3d 248 (Ind. App. 2016) (affirmingpatientsummaryjudgmentincaseinvolvingeyeinjuryleadingtocornealtransplant).Indianaalsoruledthatstatutorily amedical review report is admissible in asubsequent malpractice civil suit where the panelmembersmaybe cross‐examinedabout the findings.SeeDickey v. Long, 575N.E.2d 339 (Ind. App. 1991)(involving failure toobserve that a child’sopticdiscswereelevated).
SOCBreachandCausation Asexpectedanumberofcaseshaveupheldoptomet‐ricmalpracticeliabilityinfailuretorefercontexts.See,e.g.,Fairchildv.Brian,354So.2d675(La.App.1977)(involving delay in discovery of detached retina);Steele v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 321 (D. Alaska1978) (involving granulomatous retinitis leading toenucleation). Ina “missedappointment” case itwasheld thatanoptometrist isnotnegligent fordelayingperformanceofaglaucomatestduetoanirritatedeyecondition, when the patient failed to appear at thereset appointment. See Treharne v. Dunlap, 565N.Y.S.2d664(Sup.Ct.Feb.1,1991).In a case involving Pennsylvania’s “corporate negli‐gence” case law, it was held that an optometrist’scorporateemployer couldnotbeheld liablebecauseunlikehospitalspatientshave full freedom tochoosewheretoreceiveoptometriccare.SeeMilanv.Ameri‐can Vision Center, 34 F. Supp. 2d 279 (E.D. Penn.1998).In regard to causation no cause verdictswillbe setasidewhentheevidenceshowsconclusivelythateye‐sight failure could have been forestalled or delayedhad the optometrist promptly diagnosed glaucoma.
O P T O M E T R I C M A L P R A C T I C E , C O N T ’ D
“Duetosomeoverlap
betweenthe
optometricand
ophthalmological
professions,a
numberofcaseshave
evaluatedwhether
oneprofessionmay
testifyagainstthe
other.”
Page2P R O F E S S I O N A L L I A B I L I T Y D E F E N S E Q U A R T E R L Y
Romerov.Riggs,24Cal.App.4th117,29Cal.Rptr.2d219 (App. 1994) (involving three optometrists andthree ophthalmologists who testified that had thepatient’s glaucomabeen timelydiagnosedvision losswouldhavebeen reversible). Even if failure todiag‐noseacataractconstitutesabreachofduty,claimwillfail if plaintiff cannot prove cognizable injury causa‐tion. SeeBoothev.Weiss,107App.Div.2d730(N.Y.Sup.Ct.Jan.22,1985).Causationmaybeestablishedper the “lost chance”theorybydemonstrating thattheoptometrist’snegli‐gence increased the riskofharm. SeeKeir v.UnitedStates,853F.2d398,416 (6thCir.1988) (reversingadefense summary judgment on grounds the“overwhelming evidence” required ophthalmologicalreferralwhentumordiscoverywasdelayed).
LimitationsStatutesOf course the statute of limitations often is a keydefense in optometric malpractice actions. Somecourts apply the occurrence rule, which bars claimsregardlessofdiscovery.See,e.g.,Homesv.Iwasa,104Idaho179,657P.2d476(1983)(rulingthatthelegisla‐ture’s discovery exception did not apply to optome‐trists). Other courts adopt the discontinuation oftreatmentrule. See,e.g.,Wellsv.Billars,391N.W.2d668 (S.D.1986) (ruling that thedutycontinuedup tothedateofthe follow‐upappointment). Indiscoveryrulestates thestatuteexpires if thepatientbecomesawareof thepossibilityofoptometricerrorbutdoesnot sue until it is confirmed. SeeWebb v.OcularraHolding, Inc.,232Wis.2d495,606N.W.2d552 (App.1999)(involvingfailuretodiagnosisbraintumor).Seealso Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. 2005)(allegingnegligentLASIK⁴recommendationandapply‐ing the discovery rule). A new symptom (or injury)may re‐commence the running of the SOL in somestates.See,e.g.,Zechmannv.Thigpen,437S.E.2d475(Ga.App.1993) (involving failure to refer toophthal‐mologist and new symptoms developed four yearslater).Some cases have evaluated whether medical mal‐practicelimitationsstatutesapplytooptometriccases.CompareWhitt v. Columbus Cooperative Enterprises,415N.E.2d985 ((Ohio1980) (ruling themedicalmal‐practiceone‐year SOLdidnotapply tooptometrists)withWebb,supra(rulingthemedicalmalpracticeSOLdid apply to optometrists). If “optometrist” is notincludedinthestatutorylistofprofessionsthataffida‐vitofmerit requirementsapply to, the requirementsmay not apply. See Mirow v. LeBovic, 2009 WL5206249 (D.N.J. 2009) (involving detached retina).Principlesofstatutoryconstruction ineachstatemaydetermine whether optometrists fall within the(typically shorter) medical malpractice limit, whenoptometry isnot identified inthestatute. SeeBrous‐sardv.SearsRoebuckandCo.,568So.2d225(La.App.1990);Annot.,WhenLimitationsPeriodBeginstoRun
on Claim forOptometrist’sMalpractice, 70 A.L.R.4th600(1989)(notingthatclaimantsmayarguethebodilyinjurystatute,orUCCstatute(i.e.,thesaleof lenses),mayapply ifmedicalmalpracticestatutesarguablydonotapplytooptometrists).UnderthecontinuingwrongdoctrinetheSOListolleduntil thewrongful act ceases. Smith v.Washington,716N.E.2d607,615‐17 (Ind.App.1999) (holding thestatutebeginstorun“onthelastdatetheoptometristtreated thepatient”). Telephonecallssubsequent totreatment, however, will not trigger the continuingwrongdoctrinewhenthecallsdidnotinvolvediagno‐sisor treatment. SeeCofferv.Arndt,732N.E.2d754(Ind.App.2000)(involvingfailuretodetectglaucoma);Flahertyv.Kantrowich,41N.Y.S.3d502(Sup.Ct.Nov.22,2016) (rulingthatroutineexamsarenotacourseoftreatment).Failuretoreferin1981whenevidenceofglaucomawaspresentwasnotbarredbyatwo‐yearstatutewhen the referralwasmadeaftera1983ex‐aminationwhenadvanced glaucomawasdiscovered.Morgan v. Taylor, 434 Mich. 180, 451 N.W.2d 852(1990) (noting therewasnodiscontinuationof treat‐mentbetweentheexams).Ontheotherhandacourthas held that routine examinations of a patientwhoappeared to be in good healthwas not a course oftreatment triggering the continuing wrong doctrine.See Cassara v. Larchmont‐Mamaroneck Eye CareGroup,600N.Y.S.2d107(Sup.Ct.June21,1993). Ar‐guments will arise as to whether post‐examinationactsofoptometricstaffinfittingeyeglassesandotherencountersextendthelimitationsperiod.Inamissedappointmentcasethecourt ruled that the limitationsstatutebegantorunwhentheoptometristscheduleda follow‐up appointment that the patient failed be‐cause granting of the appointment involved“otherwise serving” thepatient in the statue’s statu‐tory law. SeeThomas v.Golden,51Mich.App.693,214N.W.2d907(1974).Fraudulent concealment may toll the running of astatuteof repose. Tigrett v. Linn,2010WL1240745(Tenn.App.2010) (involvingoptometristwho recom‐mendedLASIKsurgeryafter informingpatienthehadnoevidenceofKeratoconus–adegenerativecornealcondition).
ProfessionalLiabilityInsuranceProfessional liability insurance cases involve theusual coverage analytical templates. They includethose in which an optometrist treats outside thescope of practice (inwhich coverage has been de‐nied). SeeKime v.Aetna Cas.& Sur. Co., 66OhioApp.277,33N.E.2d1008(1940)(involvingoptome‐trist who attempted to remove a foreign particlefrom patient’s eye using a surgical instrument).Optometry isaprofessionalservicethatmaytriggertheprofessionalservicesexclusioninageneralliabil‐ity policy. SeeNational Fire Ins. Co. v. Kilfoy, 874N.E.2d196(Ill.App.2007).
O P T O M E T R I C M A L P R A C T I C E , C O N T ’ D
ConclusionHealth care malpractice claim professionals andcounselwillfitrightintotheadjustmentordefenseofoptometricprofessionalnegligenceclaims.Expertwitnessrecruitment,affidavitofmeritscrutiny,limi‐tationsdefenseenforcement,andcausationdefensedevelopment preparations all carry over to theseclaims. Learnthediseasesandscienceandyouaregoodtogo.
Endnotes1.Ophthalmoscope isused toevaluate thebackoftheeyetodetermineiftheretina,maculaandfoveaarenormal.2.Glaucoma isrelatedtoopticnervedamageoftencaused by elevated pressure within the eye. Afloater is a smallpieceofeyeprotein that is loosewithinthemainchamberoftheeye.
3.Retinaldetachmentoccurswhena teardevelopsin the back of the eye that can fillwith fluid andcause the retina topullaway from thebackof theeye.4. LASIK stands for Laser‐Assisted in Situ Kerato‐mieusis.
O P T O M E T R I C M A L P R A C T I C E , C O N T ’ D
“Lawyersshouldbe
clearthatwhen
they‘hire’an
experttheyare
doingsoonbehalf
oftheclient,and
areactingas
agentstoeffect
thathiring.”
Page4P R O F E S S I O N A L L I A B I L I T Y D E F E N S E Q U A R T E R L Y
PLDQ’sSpring2017Issue
Weencouragemembersubmissionofarticlespertinentto
professionalliabilityclaimsadministration,defense
trialadvocacy,or
professionalliabilitysub‐stantivelaw.Themanu‐
scriptdeadlineforthenextissueis:
May1,2017.
My co‐author, Mr. Fisher, has spent the past 41yearsengagedintheclaimresolutionprocessand/orin providing insurance to other professionals—inotherwords, inhabiting the lookingglasswe lawyerssometimesoverlookatourperil.Hereareourcollectivethoughtsabouttherulesonexpertsthataren’tintheprocedurebooks.1.Earlier isbetter.Standard‐of‐care issues inacaseshouldbeframedasearlyaspossible.Thismayoftenbeaccomplished inas littleasninetydays from theopeningofthefile.Theissuescanbedefined,andtheneeds forexpert testimony canbeassessed, as canthe kind of expert(s)who shouldbe engaged. In agiven case these might include a standard‐of‐careexpert, as well was tax, reconstruction, environ‐mental, human resources, and other experts. All ittakes is some informed forethought. It costs little,sometimesnothing,togetanearly“curbside”consul‐tation.2.Howmuchinformationisenough?Thetrickypartishavingenoughinformationaboutthecasetoallowa consultant to assist in suggesting investigation ordiscovery that the case needs, based on standardindustrypractices,withoutwaiting for the resultsofformaldiscovery.Bythattimetheproverbialhorseisoutofthebarn.Doindustryorganizationshaveonlineresourcesabout thesubjectsat issue?Whatare theapplicable governmental or self‐regulatory authori‐ties? Who are the reliable “heavy hitters” amongexpertsinthespecificarea?Alawyerseesanewcomplaintthathasbeenfiledincourtandstarts thinking,“Affirmativedefenses.”Anindustry consultant sees the same complaint andstarts thinking, “Where are the records that willproveordisprovetheallegationsortheclaimeddam‐ages?” In this context, the “looking glass” is a tele‐
scope—thelawyerandtheexpertlookthroughdiffer‐entendsofthetube.Whatthelawyerprovidestotheconsultantorexpertisequally important. Whilewe allwant theperfectcase and the strongest expert opinion, life doesn’tdealusaroyalflusheverytime,ifever.Honestyisstillthebestpolicy,andanhonestopinionthatrecognizesthe shortcomings in the caseaswellas its strengthswillbemorecredibletoajudgeorjury.(Thoseshort‐comings, if recognizedup front, canoftenbedimin‐ished in importance through counter‐arguments onlackofcausationanddamages.)Experts,whether formally retainedor justprovidinginitialobservations,shouldbeprovidedwithevidenceforthedownsideofacaseaswellastheupside.Thisprevents“unwantedsurprises”andisoftenacatalystforacreativesolution3.Whose case is this?When the time to retain anexpert or consultant is nigh, it’s also time to clarifytwo closely‐related issues: (a)Who is retaining theexpert? (b)Who ispaying theexpert?Manyexperts’standard fee agreements recite that they are beinghiredby the law firms.That isahalf truth. Justasageneralcontractormayhireasoilssubcontractor,thesubcontractor’sworkisbeingperformedforthebene‐fitofthedeveloperorowner. In the legalmilieu, it’stheclient’scase,notthelawyer’s.Lawyers should be clear thatwhen they “hire” anexpert theyaredoingsoonbehalfof theclient,andareactingasagentstoeffectthathiring.Expertsmaywanttohavethelawfirm“onthehook”fortheirbills,but theproperpayingparty is the client,orperhapsthe client’s liability insurer. Establishing in writingfromtheoutsetwhotheexpert isreallyworking for,and who is really responsible to pay the bills, can
T I P S F O R W O R K I N G W I T H E X P E R T S , C O N T ’ D
avoidalotofdivisivecommunicationsdowntheroad.4.Freeparking. Itcosts littleornothingto"park"anexpert,meaning an initial retention as a consultantthatmakestheexpertunavailabletoopposingparties.The expert’s work can be put on hiatus after the“curbside” opinion, and reactivated when laterneeded.The “curbside” opinionwilloften be in the form ofquestions that outline information that needs to beobtained from a variety of sources, includingdiscov‐ery.Once obtained, the conclusions drawn from theinformation may moot the need to litigate or mayrequirethatgearingupfortrial.Afewextrainsightscanmakeaworldofdifferenceina case,with fewer surprises and regrets as towhat“mighthavebeendone.”5.Thegood,thebad,andtheugly.Lawyersareadvo‐cates,andassuchtrytopaintthebestpictureofthefactsfortheirclients.It’sagoodstrategy infrontofajury or arbitrator, but notwith an expert. The non‐confidentialinformationaboutthecasethattheothersideisgoingtolearnanywayshouldnotbekeptfromanexpert.Otherwise,astronglyfavorableexpertopin‐ion can tumble like a house of cards on cross‐examination. Itcanruinyourwholeday,not tomen‐tionthecase.Sometimes,yourexpertcandoyouan immense fa‐vor (if hired early) by identifying a truly hopelesscase—onethatshouldbesettledbeforetheothersiderealizes justhowgoodtheircase is.Butheorshecanonlydothatwithanaccurateknowledgeofthefacts.Acaveat:theattorney’sopinionsaboutthecaseandconfidential communications with the client shouldnotbegiventoanexpert,ortheymaybecomediscov‐erable.Therearewaystogetdamaginginformationtoan expert without breaching the attorney‐client orwork‐productprivileges.6. The Scouts’ Motto. Be prepared for the unex‐pected,andbeflexible.Wedevelopourownnarrativeof a case early in its life span.How oftenwe reach
snap judgments—the case is a “dead bang loser,” a“bunchofB.S.,”ora“cakewalk.”Webecomecommit‐tedtothoseperceptionsinourearlyreportstoclients.Changing our evaluations can be like a loaded oiltankertryingtomakea90‐degreeturn.Majorshiftsincaseevaluationsarepreferablebeforemost of the budgeted defense fees and costs havebeen incurred, for obvious reasons. A consultant’stimely inputcanaiddefensecounseland the liabilityinsurer in avoiding a change in the case’s evaluationbasedon factors outside counsel’s legal training andexpertise, long before the courthouse steps are insight.Everycaseisreallythreedifferentcases:theonethatwalks in thedoor and aboutwe form our initial im‐pressions, theonewe learnabout throughdiscovery,andtheonethatthejudge,jury,orarbitratorhearsattrial. It is,afterall,completelynew to thosewhode‐cide its outcome. An early consultation helps assurethatthefirstcase’strajectoryisstraightandtrue,andmayneedonlyminormid‐coursecorrections.We’veallheardthelessonsincechildhood:astitchin
T I P S F O R W O R K I N G W I T H E X P E R T S , C O N T ’ D
“Majorshiftsincase
evaluationare
preferablebefore
mostofthebudgeted
defensefeesand
costshavebeen
incurred,forobvious
reasons.”
Page5V O L U M E 9 I S S U E 1
Louie Castoria is a partner with Kauf‐manDolowichVoluck inSanFrancisco.He defends financial and professionalservices clients in venues throughoutCalifornia and in the FINRA arbitrationforum. Louie chairs PLDF’s Miscellane‐
Frederick J. Fisher startedhiscareer inprofessional liability claims adjustingthatincludedauditing,riskmanagementservices, and TPA work. He thenfounded ELM Insurance Brokers andserved as CEO for 20 years. Frederick
timesavesnine.StephenB.SamboliswithMateerHar‐bert inOrlando, Florida. Stephende‐fends medical malpractice and otherprofessional liability claims, and healso advises clients in commercial liti‐gation, cyber liability, and insurance
coveragematters.Notsurprisingly,beingfromcentralFlorida,Stephenalsohasexpertiseinequinelaw.StephenattendedtheUniversityofPittsburghSchoolof Law, aswell as Stetson College of Law, and is li‐censed topractice in the state and federal courts inFlorida. He is also a Florida certified civilmediator,andhehasreceivedFloridaSupremeCourttrainingasanarbitrator.HeisamemberoftheAmericanHealthLawAssociation, theTrial Law Institute, theDiversityLaw Institute, a Fellow in the Litigation Counsel ofAmerica, and he has received the “AV” rating fromMartindale‐Hubbell. He isactive in theBusinessLawandHealthLawSectionsoftheFloridaStateBar.Stephenhasauthoredarticleson thesubjectsofcy‐ber liability, computer consultant malpractice, anti‐kickback and self‐referral laws affecting health careprofessionals,dual agency inequine sales, communi‐cations‐based lawsuits, and Florida constitutionalamendments affecting physicians. Stephen has alsoserved asVice Chair ofProfessional LiabilityDefenseFederation’sCyberLiabilityCommittee.Hemaybereachedassambol@mateerharbert.com.
M E D I C A L C O M M I T T E E C H A I RS T E P H E N B . S A M B O L
Pleasenotethe
accompanying
biographiesoffour
ofProfessional
LiabilityDefense
Federation
Committee
leaders.Thiswill
bearegular
featureinthe
PLDQ.
Page6P R O F E S S I O N A L L I A B I L I T Y D E F E N S E Q U A R T E R L Y
Stuart T. O’Neal, III, is with BurnsWhite i n i t Ph i l ade lph ia(Conshohocken) office. Stuart de‐fends medical malpractice, databreachandprivacy,employment,andofficers and directors claims in thestate and federal courts in Pennsyl‐
vania. He also litigates commercial and contractclaims.StuartisCo‐ChairofBurnsWhite’sCybersecu‐rityandProfessionalLiabilityGroups,andwasnamedthefirm’sfirstChiefPrivacyOfficerin2014.StuartalsoservesasaJudgeProTeminPhiladelphiaCountyandasamediator inMontgomeryCounty. AgraduateofVillanovaUniversitySchoolofLaw,StuarthasalsobeennamedaPennsylvaniaSuperLawyer®.HeisapastpresidentofProfessionalLiabilityDefenseFederation. Stuart can be reached [email protected].
ChristopherJ.Carey iswithGrahamCurtin, P.A., in Morristown, NewJersey.Hedefendsattorneys,medi‐cal professionals, accountants, ar‐chitects and engineers. He alsohandles directors and officers E&O
claims,anddefendsproductsliabilityactions.Christopher speaks on professional liability issuesbefore theNew Jersey State Bar Association, otherbarassociations,andtheNewJerseySocietyofCerti‐fied Public Accountants. He is licensed to practicebeforethestateandfederalcourtsofNewJerseyandNewYork.HeisagraduateoftheSetonHallUniver‐sity School of Law (J.D.), and has been selected forinclusion in New Jersey Super Lawyers® from 2005through 2016. Christopher may be reached [email protected].
R E A L E S T A T E A & BC O M M I T T E E C H A I R
G L E N R . O L S O N
M E D I C A L C O M M I T T E E V I C EC H A I R S T U A R T T . O ’ N E A L
R E A L E S T A T E A & B C O M M I T T E E V I C E C H A I RC H R I S T O P H E R J . C A R E Y
Glen R.Olson iswith Long& Levit,LLP in San Francisco. He has de‐fendedattorneys,accountant, insur‐ance agents, escrow agents, realestate brokers, and directors andofficers. Glenalsohasanextensivebackground in insurance litigation,
with a particular emphasis on professional liability/errors and omissions coverage. Between 1997 and2005 hewas an officer of anational insurer, leadingfirstitsextra‐contractualclaimsunit,andthen its law‐yers and accountants professional liability claims de‐partments.Glen has jury and bench trial experience, and wasnamed a 2012, 2013 and 2014 Northern CaliforniaSuperLawyer®.HeisCo‐ChairoftheStateBarofCali‐fornia Committee on Professional Liability Insurance,andwaspreviouslyChairoftheAmericanBarAssocia‐tionTorts,TrialsandInsurancePracticeSectionProfes‐sionals,OfficersandDirectorsLiabilityCommittee.Glen speaks at events sponsored by the ABA, StateBarofCalifornia,andBarAssociationofSanFrancisco.He is a Registered Professional Liability Underwriter(RPLU),anAssociate inRiskManagement (ARM),andhasspokenatPLUS,DRI,andIADCconferences.GlenislicensedtopracticeinthestateandfederalcourtsinCalifornia.HeisagraduateoftheUniversityofCalifor‐nia,HastingsCollegeofLaw(J.D.cumlaude)[email protected].
Thenewyearhasstartedoutwithgrowingactivityinthe construction design professional liability space.Pleasenotethefollowingdevelopments.Client hired engineering firm to provide design andpermitting services for a new beachfront develop‐ment. MichaelKieferwasaprojectmanageron theteam. Hecoordinated the teambutdidnotmanagethe licensed engineers'work. Kiefer had passed thestate "fundamentals of engineering" test and wastherefore certified as an engineer intern. Followingprojectdelayssuitwasbroughtagainstthefirmandallteammembers forprofessionalnegligence. Evidenceshowed that Kieferwas not a licensed engineer andcouldnot signand sealplans. Trial court ruledonaRule 12motion that Kieferwas not adesign profes‐sional.TherulingwasaffirmedinSunsetBeachInvest‐ments LLC v.Kimley‐Horn&Associates Inc.,2017WL33678 (Fla.App. Jan.4,2017). Recognizing thata li‐censed engineer could be subject to a professionalnegligenceclaim,hereKieferwasnota licensedengi‐neer. The legislatureclassifiedhimasanengineeringintern.Rejectinganalogiestosurveyorsandinsuranceadjusters,thecourtnotedthattheyare licensed. Cli‐entwasunable to cite any authority supportingpro‐fessional liability claims against unlicensed per‐sons. Licensing rules showwhat the legislature ex‐pects indeterminingwho shouldwork in theprofes‐sion. An intern does not meet the threshold andthereforethePLclaimcouldnotlieagainstKiefer.ArecentPennsylvaniadecisionanalyzedtheneedforexpert opinion testimony in engineering professionalnegligenceclaims,andtheroleofaffidavitsofmeritinthoseclaims.Engineeringfirmpreparedasubdivisionplanthatwouldallowacitytoacquireaparcelneededfor the constructionof awater tower. Inexchangethecitywouldprovidesewerandwatertofourlotsontheseller’sremainingproperty.A50‐footrightofwaywasplanned for theparcel,andaneasementwasre‐corded.Whenthewaterlinewasthereafterinstalled,sellersclaimed itwasplaced ina locationoutsidetheright of way. Suit followed against the engineeringfirm.Summaryjudgmentwasarguedandgrantedfortheengineering firmwhenthesellers failedtoobtainexpertwitness support. InPlaza v.HerbertRowlandandGrubic, Inc.,2017WL519827 (Pa.Super Jan.30,2017 the court upheld dismissal of the professionalliability claim. The common knowledge exceptioncould not apply to the questionwhether the pipingwasinstalledattherightdepthinthecorrectlocation.The court also ruled plaintiffs’ trespass claim wasbarredongroundsplaintiffsconsenttothewater lineplacementundertheunbuiltportionoftheroadrightofway.ANewHampshireschoolwassupposedtocost$4.7million;finalcostexceeded$9million.Schooldistrictsuedthearchitectwhogavethe$4.7millionestimate
formalpractice.Basedontheestimatethedistricthadvotersapprovetheconstruction,anditrejectedotherproposed fixes for the building deterioration. Con‐struction delays, design modifications, and damagefrom exposure to the elements pre‐enclosure fol‐lowed. Architect resigned and the successor com‐pletedtheproject. InUnitySchoolDistrictv.VaughnAssocs. Inc., 2017WL 280695 (D.N.H. Jan. 20, 2017)architect sought summary judgment, contendingschool district could not prove damages caused byarchitect’s malfeasance. Architect said the districtpaidwhat ithad topay tocomplete theproject,andapprovedalldesignchangesthatincreasedcosts.Butthecourtcounteredthatarchitectrepeatedlyassuredthedistrictaboutcosts,andcausedistrictnottomakeotherplansand lowercosts. Herearchitect failed tomonitorandmanagechangestokeepcoststoitsesti‐mate,heproposedplansthatfailedbestpracticeguid‐ance,he failedto interactsuitablywithstateauthori‐tiesregardingtheproject,andcauseddelays.Furtherdistrict showed cognizabledamages claims consistingofthearchitect’sfees,thecosttobringtheplansintoregulatory compliance, and other evidence showedtheprojectshouldhavebeencompletedfor$8.1mil‐lion.InToscanov.Weiss,2017WL416987 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.Jan.20,2017)defendant retainedplaintiff toprovidearchitecturalservicesfortheerectionofanapartmentbuilding. Plaintiff sued for unpaid fees. Defendantcounterclaimedformalpractice,butdidnotseekarbi‐tration as required by the engagement agreement.Defendant claimed plaintiff failed to submit docu‐ments tocityauthorities intimetoobtaincertain taxabatements. At summary judgment plaintiff submit‐tedhis own affidavitdemonstrating compliancewiththestandardofcare.Inaffirmingsummary judgmentthecourtruledthatwhetherdelaysinregulatorysub‐missionsconstitutedarchitecturalmalpracticedidnotfallwithin the common knowledge exception to theexpertsupportrequirement.“Plaintiff’ssubmissionofhisown affidavitwas sufficient tomakeout aprimafaciecasethathehadnotcommittedmalpractice.”Suitwasbrought(apparentlysubrogation)followingafireagainstageneralcontractorforfailuretoinstallalightningprotectionsystem(LPS)throughoutthetanksofanoil facility inNewMexico. Disputearoseas towhetherNFPAStandard780(relatingtothedesignoflightning protection systemswas admissible. Defen‐dant contended the standardwas irrelevant becausepertheeconomiclossrule,negligence‐basedevidenceis inadmissible. InAtlanticSpecialtyIns.Co.v.Deans,Inc.,No.Civ.13‐945 (D.N.M. Jan.18,2017) thecourtruledthatdefendanthadadutytodesignandinstallacode‐compliantLPS.Thereforetheeconomic lossruledidnotbartheclaimandNFPA780wasdeclaredad‐
“Thenewyearhas
startedoutwith
growingactivityinthe
constructiondesign
professionalspace.”
Page7V O L U M E 9 I S S U E 1
2 0 1 7 A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R C A S E L A W U P D A T E , B YT H O M A S D . J E N S E N , E D I T O R
missibleas it is “theguiding standardof care forde‐signandinstallationofanLPS.”InHillCityHighSchoolDistrictNo.Av.DickAndersonConstr., Inc.,2017WL491783 (Mont.Feb.7,2017)aschoolroofcollapsedandhadpresentedongoingleak‐ageproblemssinceconstructionwascompleted. Suitwasbroughtagainstthecontractorandarchitectmorethantenyearsafterfinalconstruction.Montanahasatenyearstatuteof reposeaffecting improvements torealproperty. Court ruled that the statutebegan torunwhentheschoolwasinfulluse.Asthatwasmorethantenyearsaftersuitwasbroughtthecourtmajor‐ity affirmed summary judgment for the architect. Italsoruledthatthereposestatutecannotbetolled.WhentheSwormvilleFireDepartmentneededanewfire hall it hired architects for the design. An issuearoseastowhetheracertainwallneededtobeafirewall incompliancewiththestatebuildingcode. Trialcourt granted summary judgment to the firedepart‐mentbaseduponitsexpert’sopinionaffidavitagainstthe architects. Thatwas reversed in Swormville FireCo.v.K2MArchitectsP.C.2017WL458544(N.Y.Sup.Ct.Feb.3,2017).Theexpertdisclosurewasconclusoryand involved mere speculation because it failed toreferencecodeprovisionssupportingtheopinion,andbecause the defense expert countered plaintiff’s ex‐pert’sopinion.In 2000 a lender obtained a Phase I environmentalassessment to support the owner’s loan application.(Thesitehadearlierbeenagasstation.)Nocontami‐nationwas found. In2006owner sold theparcel tohercorporation. Plaintiffsold theparcel in2010andoilcontaminationwasfoundduringpre‐closinginvesti‐gations. Plaintiff sued the environmental engineersformalpracticeinnotdiscoveringthecontaminationin2000. InMao v. Piers Environmental Services, Inc.,2017WL 511853 (Cal. App. Feb. 8, 2017) the courtaffirmeddismissaloftheclaim.Courthelddefendantowednotduty toplaintiffbecause itwasengagedbythe lender in 2000, not plaintiff. Further, plaintiffcouldnotprovedamagesbecauseshesoldtheparceltohercorporationafter the2000assessmentandnolongerowned the landwhen the contaminationwasfound.In a coverage case a project engineer sued its CGLcarrier fordefenseand indemnityaftermethane gasignitedonaconstructionsitecausingpersonalinjuries.Claimantsallegeddefendantwasnegligenceinprovid‐ingengineeringservices.InOrchardHiltz&McClimentInc.v.Phoenix Ins.Co.,2017WL244787 (6th Jan.20,2017) the court affirmed a ruling coveragewas pre‐cludedbyoperationoftheprofessionalservicesexclu‐sion.Thiswassoeventhoughsomeoftheunderlyingfactsinvolvedtasks“thatdonot,inandofthemselves,involve a specialized skill”when they are reasonablyrelated to [the]overallprovisionof professional ser‐
vices.”
2 0 1 7 A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R C A S E L A W U P D A T E , C O N T ’ D
“Idon’tbelieve
thereisanyother
organizationthat
providesthevalue
thatthePLDFdoes
forthoseofusin
thislineofwork.”
Page8P R O F E S S I O N A L L I A B I L I T Y D E F E N S E Q U A R T E R L Y
PRESIDENT’SMESSAGE
Iamtrulyhonoredtoserveasthisyear’sPLDFpresi‐dent. ThePLDFBoardofDirectors is looking forwardtoanexcitingyear.TheBoardmetonJanuary19thand20th andworked onboth long range and short termplanning issues for the coming year. Considerableenergywillfocusonenhancingthebenefitsofcommit‐teemembership. It is through theworkofourcom‐mitteesthatwethePLDFcanaccomplishitsmissionofenhancing the stature and effectiveness of profes‐sional liability defense professionals through educa‐tion, training,and theexchangeof information. Thechallengesofworking inprofessional liabilitydefensecontinuetomount.ThePLDFkeepsuscurrentiniden‐tifying anddealingwith those challenges through itsseminars and publications dealing with those chal‐lenges.Theorganizationwill continue to thriveandgrow ifweallparticipate.Bothourindustryandlawyermem‐bers can provide timely, innovative information ontopicsofinteresttousall.ThePLDFwebsiteprovidesagoldmineof information. Iencourageeveryone totakeadvantageofwhatthewebsiteoffers.Andifyouare so inclined, contribute to our PLDF Quarterly!Articlesonboth lawyerlyandpracticaltopicsarewel‐come.Iwouldstronglyencourageeveryonetogetinvolved.Join committees that interest you. If you are inter‐ested in being considered for committee leadership,pleasecontact thePLDFoffice for informationonap‐plying.Planning isunderway for the2017AnnualMeeting.This year’s meeting will be held in Chicago at theWestinChicagoRiverNorth, September 27th throughthe29th. Acall forprogram ideas is inyour inbox. Ifyouhavean idea,submit it! Andmakeplansnowtoattend.Iwouldalsoencourageeveryone tosponsorat leastone newmember this year. Industrymembers, talktheorganizationup toyourdefensecounsel. Lawyermembers,encourageyourclients,partnersandassoci‐atesto join. Idon’tbelievethereisanyotherorgani‐zation thatprovides thevalue that thePLDFdoes forthoseofusinthislineofwork.Pleasefeelfreetocontactmedirectlywithanyques‐tionsor concerns,and I’ll see you inChicago in Sep‐tember.
Timothy J. Gephart,C.P.C.U. isPresidentof PLDF and Vice President—Claims atMinnesota Lawyers Mutual InsuranceCompany. MLMwrites LPL insurance in15 states. Tim may be reached [email protected].
