Justices rule on legal malpractice procedural issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Supreme Court decision allows an Indianapolis attorney and a local law firm to raise a statute of limitations on legal malpractice claims against them.

In a nine-page ruling late Thursday in Joseph J. Reiswerg and Cohen Garelick & Glazier v. Pam Statom, 49S02-0906-CV-280, the court tackled a procedural issue that hadn’t specifically come up in Indiana before and found in favor of both the contract attorney and Indianapolis law firm.

The case stems from a medical malpractice action that Pam Statom raised following a 1998 sinus surgery at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Indianapolis. Several problems surfaced because of that procedure and Statom retained Joseph Reiswerg, who shared office space with Cohen Garelick & Glazier and worked as a contract attorney with the law firm. He filed a tort claim notice about her intent to sue for medical malpractice, but the VA determined it wasn’t received within the two-year statute of limitations period and denied the claim as untimely. Reiswerg withdrew as the woman’s attorney after filing a notice of appeal in federal court about the administrative rejection of her claim, and Statom proceeded pro se but eventually lost in April 2004 on grounds that the suit was time-barred.

In November 2005, Statom filed this legal malpractice claim in Marion Superior Court on grounds that Reiswerg failed to timely file a federal tort claims notice, as well as fraud and constructive fraud claims against both defendants. The attorney and the firm relied on the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses in the legal malpractice case.

After a year of discovery, Statom moved for partial summary judgment and sought a ruling that both Reiswerg and CG&G were “negligent as a matter of law.” Neither defendant raised the statute of limitations in response to her partial summary judgment, arguing later that it wasn’t required because of her partial motion that didn’t address their legal malpractice liability. Both the firm and attorney later moved for summary judgment because of the statute of limitations expiration, and Statom moved to strike them. Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed granted Statom’s motion to strike for both, but certified his judgment for appeal.

In a December 2008 ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s striking of Reiswerg’s motion for summary judgment but reversed the order striking a summary judgment order from CG&G. The appellate panel in March 2009 reviewed its decision on rehearing but affirmed what it had previously ruled, and the Supreme Court later granted transfer on the novel issue.

Justices reversed the trial court and held that a party doesn’t waive an affirmative defense by failing to raise it in response to a partial summary judgment motion that wouldn’t dispose of the main liability issue of the case. That means both Reiswerg and CG&G can raise that defense on remand.

“No Indiana case has heretofore addressed this issue in the context of a motion for partial summary judgment on less than liability,” Justice Theodore Boehm wrote. “However, decisions from other jurisdictions are consistent with our view. Where, as here, the plaintiff moves only for partial summary judgment on an issue or an element but not as to liability, the defendant is under no obligation to present all of its affirmative defenses at the summary judgment stage.”

The court found Statom didn’t move for full or partial summary judgment on liability, and so the full liability issue wasn’t included in the judgment in her favor.

“She cannot now claim a victory greater than she sought and greater than she placed in issue,” Justice Boehm wrote.

Justice Robert D. Rucker, joined by Justice Frank Sullivan, issued a separate opinion that concurred and dissented in part, saying the trial court correctly struck Reiswerg’s motion for summary judgment. They dissented in regard to Reiswerg’s motion, but concurred in relation to the law firm motion.

Justice Rucker wrote that the majority found Reiswerg didn’t waive his affirmative defense because he wasn’t obligated to raise it at that point.

“This is so, according to the majority, because Statom’s motion sought resolution only on ‘some but not all elements of liability…’ This assertion is not an easy lift for the majority. Indeed the majority labors mightily to support its position. But this case is not complicated,” he wrote.

“Under this State’s long-standing and settled law, Reiswerg could not resurrect his statute of limitations defense in his own motion for summary judgment,” Justice Rucker continued. “The defense had been waived. Easy case. The trial court properly struck Reiswerg’s summary judgment motion, and its decision should be affirmed.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?