Verdictly
Settlement
Pima County • 2012

Pima County Court Grants Defense Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice

One driver was rear-ended by a truck and sustained serious personal injuries. The injured person later sued their attorneys, claiming they were pressured into an inadequate settlement and not advised about a potential medical malpractice claim. The attorneys argued they discussed the malpractice claim but did not pursue it, and the injured person agreed to the settlement. The court ruled in favor of the attorneys.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Other Injury
Truck/Commercial
Economic Injury

Case Outcome

Outcome
Settlement
Amount
$1,194
County
Pima County, AZ
Resolved
2012

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Other
Accident Type
Truck/Commercial
Case Type
Economic Injury

Settlement Context

This settlement of $1,194 is below the median of $15,000 for other cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $7,752 to $67,500, based on 126 cases in our database.

Case Overview

In May 2007, an individual suffered serious injuries after a truck rear-ended their vehicle. The injured party retained counsel and subsequently sued the truck's driver and owner.

On November 23, 2009, the individual, now the plaintiff, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the former attorneys in the Arizona Superior Court for Pima County. The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to investigate potential medical negligence, advise retaining separate counsel for a malpractice claim, and coerced him into an inadequate settlement. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked the required medical expert to prove a missed malpractice claim. They contended they discussed a malpractice suit but declined it, a decision the plaintiff accepted without further expert opinion. The defendants also stated the plaintiff voluntarily signed the original settlement.

On February 6, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, entering judgment in their favor and awarding $1,194.20 in taxable costs. The outcome stemmed from the plaintiff's failure to provide the necessary expert testimony to establish a viable underlying medical malpractice claim.

Understanding This Case

  • This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
  • This case was resolved in Pima County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2012, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.

VerdictlyTM Score

32
/100
Potentially Unfair

This outcome significantly deviates from similar cases

This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.

Want to understand your case value?

Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Pima County.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

$30,000
Settlement
Lumbar Disc Injury
Rear-end
Motor Vehicle Negligence

On May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

Kings County • 2010
View full case