Dechambeau v. Balkenbush, Esq.

 and causation, and that they likewise could not establish that any of the
alleged negligent acts in the legal malpractice action caused the
DeChambeaus damages, i.e., that if respondents had handled the medical
malpractice case differently, the DeChambeaus would have prevailed in
the medical malpractice case. The DeChambeaus opposed the motion,
arguing that two disputed factual issues precluded summary judgment: (1)
whether the defendant doctor in the medical malpractice action, David
Smith, M.D., failed to timely perform a heart procedure on Neil
DeChambeau, and thus breached the medical standard of care, and (2)
whether respondent Stephen Balkenbush failed to identify and prosecute
the medical malpractice given the weight of evidence that existed against
the doctor, and thus breached the legal standard of care. The district
court granted summary judgment, finding that the DeChambeaus failed to
demonstrate the causation element of their cause of action, that is,
whether Balkenbush's failure to engage in written discovery and move the
case to trial caused any damages. This appeal followed.
A legal malpractice claim requires proof of "an attorney-client
relationship, a duty owed to the client by the attorney, breach of that duty,
and the breach as proximate cause of the client's damages." Semenza v.
Nev. Med. Liab. Ins. Co., 104 Nev. 666, 667-68, 765 P.2d 184, 185 (1988).
Proof of such a claim generally requires expert evidence to establish the
attorney's breach of care and "an expert witness may be required to prove
the causation issue." Allyn v. McDonald, 112 Nev. 68, 71, 910 P.2d 263,
266 (1996). In a medical malpractice action, medical expert testimony
regarding standard of care and causation must be stated to a reasonable
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
degree of medical probability. Morsi,cato v. Say-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121
Nev. 153, 158, 111 P.3d 1112, 1116 (2005).
Here, although respondents contend that the DeChambeaus'
expert witness, Dr. Mark Seiffert, did not offer any testimony on
causation, Dr. Seiffert opined that Dr. Smith breached the standard of
care by not immediately performing a pericardiocentesis procedure
following Neil's cardiac arrest, and more specifically, he testified that to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, Dr. Smith did not perform a
pericardiocentesis until after the echocardiogram results were obtained,
which was more than 10 minutes after the cardiac arrest. Dr. Seiffert
testified that the medical records showed that an echocardiogram machine
arrived about 10 minutes after Neil's cardiac arrest, his pulse was
restored about 5 minutes later, and to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, the restoration of the pulse occurred immediately following the
pericardiocentesis procedure, as that procedure removed the blood from
the pericardial space, allowing the heart to pump again. While Dr.
Seiffert did not use the word causation, there is no dispute that Neil's
death was caused by an anoxic brain injury as a result of his pulse not
being restored for about 15 minutes, and Dr. Seiffert opined that Dr.
Smith breached the standard of care by not immediately performing the
procedure necessary to restore Neil's pulse.
Although respondents also contend that the DeChambeaus'
expert legal witness did not testify that Balkenbush's conduct was a
proximate cause of any damages, their expert testified that there was a
breach of the standard of care with regard to Balkenbush actively
pursuing the case. In particular, the expert concluded that, given the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
medical records indicating that Dr. Smith did not immediately perform the
procedure necessary to restore Neil's pulse, Balkenbush breached his duty
to the DeChambeaus in handling discovery, failing to take depositions of
fact witnesses and defendants, failing to obtain a certain medical record
for close to three years by subpoena or by seeking a court order while not
engaging in any written discovery during that period, failing to get the
case to a settlement conference, failing to communicate with expert
witnesses, and failing to obtain an extension for retaining a new expert to
replace an expert who changed his opinion. Without using the word
causation, the expert indicated that these breaches led to the loss of a
meritorious medical malpractice claim in that the medical malpractice
action had sufficient issues to go to trial.
The DeChambeaus supported their arguments against
summary judgment with admissible evidence, including transcripts of
deposition testimony and medical records. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the DeChambeaus, and drawing reasonable
inferences in their favor, summary judgment should have been denied.
Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005)
(providing that in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, "the
evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in
a light most favorable to the nonmoving party" and recognizing that
summary judgment is appropriate only when "the pleadings and other
evidence on file demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any material fact
remains"); Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 249, 849 P.2d 320,
322 (1993) (explaining that summary judgment is improper when "a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"); see
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A
Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1031 (noting that the "[Ole
substantive law controls which factual disputes are material" and that a
"factual dispute is genuine when the evidence is such that a rational trier
of fact could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
Parra guirre
Douglas
Lkkh
Cherry
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
David Wasick, Settlement Judge
Charles R. Kozak
Pollara Law Group
Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A