FI RST DI VI SI ON

D OYLE, C. J.

B OGGS and PETERSON, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 10, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A2 03 0 . J IM TIDW ELL FORD INC. v . BASHUK ET AL. PE-0 4 1

P E T E R S O N , J u d g e.

J i m Ti d wel l Fo rd In c. (“ T i d wel l ”) fi l ed s u i t ag ai n s t J effrey Al an Bas h u k an d

h i s law fi rm Bas h u k & Gl i ck m an (co l l ect iv el y

, “ Bas h uk ”), al l eg i n g

, am o n g o t h er

cl ai m s

, t hat Bas h uk co m m i t t ed m al p ract i ce i n d efen d in g Ti d wel l i n a s l i p -an d -fal l

l aws u i t

. Ti d wel l ap p eal s f r o m a g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju d g m en t t o Bas hu k i n t h e

m al p ract i ce cas e, arg u in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y (1 ) d eci di n g t h a t Bas h u k was

en t i t l ed t o ju dg m en t al i m m u n i t y ; (2 ) ru l i n g th at Ti dwel l’ s se t t l em en t o f t h e

u n d erl y i n g cas e b arred i ts cl ai m s ag ai n s t Bas h u k ; (3 ) co n cl ud i n g t h at Ti d wel l ’ s

b reach o f fi d u ci ary cl ai m was d u p l i c at i v e o f t h e m al p ract i ce cl ai m ; an d (4 ) fi n d i n g

t h at Ti dwel l ’ s fai l u re t o s u pp o rt i ts res p o n s e t o Bas h u k ’ s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t wi t h s p eci fi c referen ces to t h e reco rd was a bas i s fo r g ran ti n g t h e m o t i o n. Becau s e t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y h el d t h at Ti dwel l ’ s s et t l em en t o f t h e u n d erl y i n g s u i t

ag ai n s t i t b arred b ot h i t s m al p ract i ce cl ai m an d i t s b reach of fi d u ci ary d u t y cl ai m

, we

affi rm th e g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju d g m en t

.

Su m m ary ju d g m en t is p ro p er wh en t h ere i s n o gen u i n e i s s u e o f m at e r i a l f a c t

an d t h e m o v an t i s en ti t l ed t o j u d g m en t as a m at t er of law. O CGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). W e

rev i ew a g ran t or den i al of su m m ary ju d g m en t de n o v o an d co n s tru e t h e ev i d en ce in

t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v an t

. Ho m e Bu i l d er s As sn

. o f S a va n n a h v.

Ch a t ha m Co u n ty , 2 7 6 Ga. 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 (1 ) (5 7 7 SE2 d 5 6 4 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

So v iewed

, t h i s m al p ract i ce l aws u i t s t em s fro m a p ers o n al i n ju ry s u i t b ro u g ht

ag ai n s t Ti d wel l b y Ch arl es Ch as e i n fed eral co u rt

. Ch as e, wh o was 7 8 y ears o l d at

t h e t i m e o f th e i n ci d en t t h at g av e ri s e to h i s s u i t

, co n t en d ed t h at T i d wel l was

res p o n s i b l e fo r h i m

fal l i n g off a p l at fo rm wh i le a cu s to m er at Ti d wel l ’ s au t o m o b i l e

d eal ers h i p

. Ti d wel l en g ag ed Bas h u k t o defen d i t i n t h e l aws u i t

. A ju ry fo u n d in

Ch as e’ s fav o r an d ret u rn ed a v erd i ct fo r $ 1 ,0 83 ,0 6 7

. 2 0, red u ced b as ed o n t h e ju ry ’ s

ap p ort i o n m en t o f 2 5 p ercen t of t h e fau l t t o Ch as e

. Ret ai n i ng an o t h er fi rm t o h an d l e

t h e ap p eal

, Ti d wel l fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap p eal o f t h e verd i ct t o t h e U .S. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

fo r t h e El ev en t h Ci rcu i t

. In Au g u s t 2 0 12

, h o wev er, t h e d eal ers h i p s et t l ed t h e cas e fo r

$ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 b efo re b ri efi n g t h e ap p eal

.

2Ti d wel l s u b s eq u en t l y fi l ed t h i s l aws u it

. Ti d wel l cl ai m ed t h at Bas h u k fai l ed to

o b t ai n an d pro perl y p res en t ev i d en ce, i n cl ud i n g ex pert tes t i m o n y an d m ed i cal

reco rd s

, t o s h o w th at Ch as e ’s f a l l w a s cau s ed b y a p reex i s t in g m ed ical co n d i t i o n

.

Sp eci fi cal l y

, Ti d wel l co m p l ai n ed ab o u t al l eg ed t ri al p rep arat i o n fai l ures b y Bas h u k

reg ard i n g ev i d en ce t hat Ch as e s u ffered fro m a p reex i st i ng n eu ro l o g i c al co n d i t i o n

cal l ed p ero n eal n eu ro p at hy (PN), s o m et i m es referred t o i n t hi s l i t i g at i o n an d t h e

u n d erl y i n g l i t i g at io n b y t h e nam e of o n e o f PN’ s s y m p t o m s

, “ fo ot d ro p .” 1 Ti d wel l

co n ten d ed t h at

, d u e t o fai l in g s by Bas h u k

, t h e ju d g e in t h e u n d erl y i n g cas e ru l ed t h at

Lo ri n Freed m an

, a d o ct or wh o h ad ex am i n ed Ch as e at Ti d wel l ’ s b eh es t

, co u l d n ’ t

t es t i fy ab o ut Ch as e’ s PN

. Ti d w el l al s o cl ai m ed t h at Bas h u k co m m i t t ed m al p ract i ce

b y fai li n g t o o b t ai n so m e o f Ch as e’ s m ed i cal reco rd s t h at wo ul d hav e s ho wed h i s PN

was m o re s ev ere t h an h e ack n owl ed g ed at t ri al

.

Aft er d i s co v ery

, Bas h u k m o v ed fo r s um m ary ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g am o n g o t h er

t h i n g s t h at t h e co m

p l ai ned -o f act i o n s w ere t act i cal d eci s i o n s t hat fe l l u n d er t h e

u m brel l a o f ju d g m en t al i m

m un i t y . Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed t h e m o t io n

, reject i n g t h e

m al p ract i ce cl ai m s o n t h ree al t ern at i v e bas es

. Fi rs t

, t h e t ri al co u rt s ai d t h at Ti d wel l ’ s

1 In hi s t es ti m on y

, Ch as e d es cri bed h i s c o n d i t i o n as i n v o lv i n g h i s fo ot

“ s l ap [p in g ] ” o n t h e p av em en t

.

3“ fai l u re t o s p eci fy t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e reco rd u p o n wh i ch i t rel i es i s fat al t o i t s

p o s i t i on th at s u m

m ary ju d g m en t s h ou l d b e d en i ed .” Th e t ri al co u rt n ev ert h el es s t h en

co n si d ered t h e m eri t s o f Ti d w el l ’ s cl ai m s

, co ncl u d i n g t h ey m us t fai l un d er t h e

d o ct ri n e o f

ju d g m en t al im

m un i t y

. Al t ern at i v el y

, t h e t ri al co urt s ai d Ti d wel l co u l d n ot

s h o w t h at an y m al p ract i ce b y Bas h u k p ro xi m at el y cau s ed i t s d am ag es

, b ecau s e i t

s et t l ed th e u nd erl y i ng cas e w h il e i t s t i l l h ad a v iab l e ap p eal

. Fi n al l y

, th e tri al co u rt

g ran t ed s u m

m ary ju d g m en t o n Ti d wel l ’ s cl ai m o f b reach o f fi d u c i a r y duty

, s ay i n g t h at

cl ai m wa s “ d u p l i cat iv e” o f th e m al p ract i ce cl ai m an d th at

, ev en i f t he b reach o f

fi du ci ary d u t y cl ai m were n o t d u p l i cat iv e, i t wo ul d no t h av e s urv i v ed s u m m ary

ju d g m en t fo r t h e s am e reas o n s t h at Ti d wel l ’ s m al p ract i ce cl ai m was b ei n g d i s m i s s ed

. 2 Ti d wel l co n ten d s o n ap p eal t h at al l o f t h es e co ncl u s i o n s were i n erro r.

1

. B a s h u k arg u es t h at o u r an al y s is o f Ti d wel l ’ s ap p eal s h ou l d b eg i n an d

en d w i t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s h o ld in g t h at Ti d wel l ’ s s et t l em en t o f t he u nd erl y i n g cas e b ars

i t s m al p ract i ce cl ai m

. W e ag ree.

In ord er to p rev ai l o n a l eg al m al p ract i ce cl ai m

, a p l ai n ti ff m u s t es t ab l i s h t h ree

el em en t s : (1 ) em

p l o y m en t o f th e d efen d an t at to rn ey

, (2 ) fai l u r e o f t h e at t o rn ey to

2 Em p l o y i n g t h i s s am e an al y s i s

, t h e t ri al co u rt al s o g ran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t

t o t he d efen s e on Ti dwel l ’ s cl ai m s o f b reach o f co n t ract an d b reach o f g o o d fai t h an d

fai r d eal i n g s . Ti d wel l d o es n o t ap p eal t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ru l in g o n t h es e cl ai m s

.

4ex erci s e o rd i n ary care, s k i l l

, an d d i l i g en ce, an d (3 ) t h at s u ch n eg li g en ce was t h e

p ro x im at e cau s e o f d am ag e t o t h e p l ai nt i ff. Ma u l d in v. W ei n s t o ck

, 2 0 1 G a. Ap p

. 5 1 4,

5 1 8 (4 ) (4 1 1 SE2 d 3 7 0 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (ci t at i on o m i t ted ). “ A cl ai m fo r l eg al m al p ract i ce i s

s u i g en eri s i n s o far as t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s p ro o f o f d am ag es effect iv el y req u i res pro o f t h at

h e wo u ld h av e p rev ai l ed i n t h e o ri g in al act i o n b u t fo r t h e act o f t h e at t o rn ey ch arg ed

wi t h m al p ract i ce.” W

h i t e v. R o l l ey

, 2 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 7

, 4 6 8 (1 ) (4 8 4 SE2 d 83 ) (1 9 9 7 )

(ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). “ In a cas e wh ere a p l ai nt i ff’ s p en d i n g cl ai m s

rem ai n v i ab l e d es p i t e t h e at t orn ey ’ s al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce, th e p l ai n t i ff sev ers p ro x i m at e

cau s at i o n b y s et t l in g t h e cas e, an act wh i ch m ak es i t i m po s s i b l e fo r h i s l a w s u i t to

t e rm i n at e i n h i s fav o r.” Du nca n v. Kl ei n

, 3 13 G a. Ap p

. 1 5, 2 0 (1 ) (7 2 0 SE2 d 3 4 1 )

(2 0 1 1) (ci t at i o n an d i n t ern al p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). S ee a l so Ma ul d i n , 2 0 1 Ga. Ap p.

at 5 18 (4 ). A cl ai m i s “ v i ab l e” i f “ f u r t h e r l i t i g at i on o f th at cl ai m m ay l ead t o a

fav o rab l e res ul t as o f t he t i m e p ri o r co u n s el was di s m i s s ed fro m t h e cas e.” W h i t e

, 2 2 5

Ga. Ap p

. at 4 6 8 (2 ) (ci t at i o n

, pu n ct u at io n

, an d em ph as i s o m i t t ed ). “ A p p l yi n g t h i s

co n cep t t o l i m i t reco v ery n eces s ar il y i nv o lv es a p o l i cy d eci s i o n t h at

, fo r v ari ou s

reas on s i ncl u d in g t h e i nt erv en i n g act o f a th i rd p ers on

, t he d efen d an t’ s co nd u ct i s t o o

5rem o t e fro m t h e i n ju ry t o at t ach l i ab i l i t y .” Id

. at 4 7 0 (2 ) (ci t at i o n s om i t t ed ). 3 “ W h i l e

t h i s p o l i cy d eci s i o n i s u s u al l y l eft t o a j u ry

, i n p l ai n a n d u n d i s p u t ed cas es t h e co u rt

m ay m ak e t h e d et erm i n at io n as a m at t er o f l aw.” Id

. (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

H e r e

, h av i ng en g ag ed an o t h er fi rm t o h an d l e i t s ap p eal

, Ti d wel l d ecl i n ed t o

p u rs u e t h e m at t er fu rt her, s et t l i n g b e fo re t h e ap p eal h ad b een b ri efed

. Th u s

, t h e

q u es ti o n fo r t h i s co u rt is wh et h er t h e ap peal m ad e t h e cas e v iab l e fo r p u rp o ses o f t h e

ru l e t h at s et t l em en t o f a v i ab l e un d erl y i n g cl ai m s ev ers pro x i m at e cau se. If i t d i d

, t h e

d eci s i o n t o s et t l e m ean s Ti d wel l can n o t p ro v e t h at an y n eg l i gen ce b y Bas hu k cau s ed

i t i n ju ry

. Ou r p reced en t co u ns el s t h at a cl ai m i s co n s i d ered v i ab l e fo r t h es e p u rp o s es

as l o ng as fu rt her l i t i g at i o n “ m ay l ead t o a fav o rab l e res u l t .” Id

. at 4 6 8 (2 ). Co n t rary

t o Ti d wel l ’ s arg u m en t s

, th ere i s n o req u i rem en t o f cert ai n t y t h at t h e cl i en t u l t i m at el y

wo u l d h av e wo n t h e u n d erl y i n g cas e. S ee i d

.

Th e t ri al co u rt i n Ti d wel l ’ s m al p ract i ce cas e fo u n d t h at th e ap p eal Ti d wel l

d ecl i ned t o b ri ef “ m ay

u lt i m at el y h av e l ed t o a rev ers al ” t h at wo u ld h av e p erm i t t ed

a ret ri al o f Ch as e’ s cas e

. W e ag ree. Al t h ou g h Ti d w e l l n e v e r b ri efed i t s ap p eal

, an

3 Ot h er p o li cy co n si d erat i o n s m i g h t s u gg es t a d i fferen t ru l e. A ru l e t h at req u i res

wo u l d -b e l eg al m al p ract i ce p lai n t i ffs t o ex h au s t al l p os s i b l e ap p eal s i n t h e un d erl y i n g

m at t er wo u l d ap p ear t o fo rce t h o s e p art ies t o ri s k i n creas i n g t hei r o wn d am ag es ju s t

s o t h ey can lat er p u rs u e an u n cert ai n m al p ract i ce rem ed y

. H o w e v er, b i n d i n g

p reced en t p ro v i d es t h e ru l e we em p l o y h ere.

6em ai l fro m Bas h u k t o Ti d wel l ’ s i n -h o u s e co u n s el set f o rt h s ev eral b as es fo r ap p eal

. Sp eak in g fo r h im s el f an d an ot h er l awy er b ro u g h t i n as co -co u n sel fo r Ti d wel l p ri o r

t o t ri al

, Bas hu k s ai d i n t h e em ai l t h at t h e t wo l awy ers b el i ev ed t h e t ri al ju d g e i n

Ch as e’ s cas e h ad co m

m i t t ed rev ers i b l e erro r b y l i m it i n g t h e tes t im o n y o f b o th

Freed m an (t h e d oct o r wh o m Ti d wel l h ad h i re d t o ex am i n e Ch as e) an d M arv in

Ro y s t er, o n e of Ch as e’ s t reat i n g p h y s i ci an s

. At t h e s t art o f t h e t ri al i n Ch as e’ s cas e,

Ch as e’ s at t orn ey o b

ject ed t o t es t i m o n y b y Freed m an o n t h e b as i s t h at h e h ad n o t b een

i d e n t i f i e d b y Ti d wel l as an ex p ert wi tn es s an d t h at h is in d ep en d en t m ed i cal

ex am i n at i o n o f Ch as e w as m ean t t o d et erm i n e wh et h er Ch as e h ad d em en t i a, n ot to

ex p lo re h i s PN

. Vi a arg u m en t b y Bas h u k

, Ti d w el l r e s po n d ed t h at Ch as e’ s co u n s el

was pres en t fo r Freed m an ’ s ex am i n at i o n o f C h as e an d h ad recei v ed th e d o ct o r’ s

rep o rt

. Bas h u k t o ld t he tri al j u d g e t h at t h e d efen se h ad “ ab s o lu tel y n o p ro b l em wi th

wi t h d rawi n g an y h yp o t h e t i cal q u es t i o n t h at was o ffered to Dr. Freed m an [.] ” 4 Bu t

,

Bas hu k s u g g es t ed

, ev en i f Freed m an were no t ab le t o tes t ify as an ex p ert wi t n es s

, h e

s h o u ld be al lo wed t o t es t i fy ab o u t Ch as e’ s PN as a l a y w i t nes s

, b as ed o n h i s

o b s erv at i o n s an d ex p eri en c e a s a p h y s ici an

, ad d i ng th at Freed m an co u l d b e

4 Sh o rt l y t h ereaft er, Bas h u k t o l d t h e j u d ge t h at Freed m an s h o u l d b e p erm i t t ed

t o t es t i fy “ ei th er as a fact wi t nes s o r an ex p ert .”

7co n si d ered a t reat i n g p h y s i ci an u n d er t h e l aw

. Bu t t h e t ri al ju dg e ru l ed t h at h e wo u ld

l i m i t Freed m an ’ s t es t i m o ny t o th e d o ct o r’ s fi n di n g t h at Ch as e d i d n o t h av e d em en t i a

.

Th e t ri al co u rt t h at l at er h eard Ti dwel l ’ s m al p ract i ce cas e h el d t h at t h e ju d g e

wh o h eard t he u n d erl y in g p ers o n al i n ju ry c a s e m a y h av e erred b y p rev en t i n g

Freed m an fro m t es t i fy i n g as a fact wi t n es s as t o kn o w l ed g e h e m a y h a v e o b t ai n ed

t h ro u g h h i s ex am in at i o n o f Ch as e. As ex p lai n ed b y t h e t ri al co u rt i n t he m al p ract i ce

cas e, El ev en t h Ci rcu i t cas e l aw d raws a d i s t i n ct io n bet ween ex p ert an d l ay t es t i m o ny

b y a p h y s i ci an

. S

ee W i ll i a ms v. Ma s t Bi o s u r

ger y US A In c.

, 6 44 F.3 d 1 3 1 2, 1 3 1 6 -1 8

(1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 1) (fi n d i n g t h at p ro d u ct s l i ab i l i t y p lai n t i ff’ s t reat in g ph y s ici an s can n ot

t es t i fy t h at a d efect i v e m ed i cal p ro d u ct was fo u n d i n her ab d o m i n a l cav i t y ). A

p h y s i ci an m ay

o ffer l ay t es t i m o n y

i f h e o r s h e tes t ifi es ab o u t o b s erv at i o ns b as ed o n

p ers o n al k n o wl ed g e, in cl u d in g t h e t reat m en t o f a p art y

. Id

. at 13 1 7 (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Ho wev er, i f a p h y si ci an ’ s t es t i m o n y i s b a s e d o n a h y p o t h es i s

, th en i t is ex p ert

t es t i m o ny th at m

u s t co m p l y wi t h fed eral l aw go v ern i n g s u ch tes t im on y

, in cl u d i n g

Fed eral Ru l e of Ev id en ce 7 0 2 an d t h e s ta n d a r d s e s t ab l i s h ed i n D a u b er t v. Mer rel l

8Do w Ph ar m a ceu ti ca l s In c ., 5 0 9 U. S. 5 7 9 (1 1 3 SCt . 2 7 8 6 , 1 2 5 LEd 2 d 4 6 9 ) (1 9 9 3 ).

Id

. at 1 3 1 7 -1 8

. 5

Bas ed o n t h is cas e l aw, i t ap p ears at l eas t p o s s ib l e t h at t h e El ev en t h Ci rcu i t

m ay h av e rev ers ed t h e v erd ict i n Ch as e’ s fav o r an d g ran t ed Ti d wel l a n ew t ri al

.

Al t h o u g h “ [d ] i s t ri ct c o u rt s hav e b ro ad d i s cret i o n t o ex cl u d e u n t i m el y d i s cl o s ed

ex p ert -wi t n es s t es t i m o n y [,] ” Ch a p ma n v. Pr o ct o r & Ga mb le D i s t r i b ut i n g LLC, 7 6 6

F.3 d 1 2 9 6, 1 3 1 5 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 14 ) (ci t at io n o m i t t ed ), t h e t ri al ju dg e w ho h eard Ch as e’ s

cas e d id no t m erel y ex cl u de an y ex p ert t es t i m o n y Fre e d m a n m i g ht h av e o ffered o n

t h e cau s e o f Ch as e’ s fal l an d i n ju ri es

. He b arred Freed m an fro m t al k in g ab o u t Ch as e’ s

PN at al l

, i n cl u d i n g wh at Freed m an m i g h t h av e o b s erv ed i n ex am i n i n g Ch as e. T h at

t es t i m o ny wo u l d ap p ear t o fal l sq u arel y wi th in th e El ev en t h Ci rcu i t’ s d efi n i t i o n o f l ay

t es t i m o ny

. M o reo v er, t h e ex cl u s i o n o f Freed m an ’ s tes t im on y on PN m ay hav e b een

5 W i l l i a ms ad d res s es t h e i s s u e in t h e co n t ex t o f a “ treat i n g p hy si ci an .” W i l l i a ms

, 6 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 6

. W h en Ch as e’ s at t o rn ey p ro tes t ed i n t h e u n d erl y i n g cas e t h at

Ti d wel l was as k i n g th e ju d g e t o al l o w Freed m an t o t es ti fy as a t reat i n g p hy s i ci an

,

ev en th o u g h t h e d o ct o r h ad t es t i fi ed i n h i s d ep o si ti o n t h a t he was n o t

, Bas h u k

res p o n d ed t h at al t ho u g h Freed m an ’ s c a t e g o ri zat i o n was “ i rrel ev an t ,” t h e d o ct o r

wo u l d m eet t h e defi n i t i o n o f “ t reat i n g p h y si ci an ” b ecau s e he h ad g i v en Ch as e

m ed i cal at t en t i o n b y t ak i n g a h is t o ry

, ex am in i n g h i m

, an d g i ving a pr o po s ed t reat m en t

p l an

. Reg ard l es s o f wh et h er Bas hu k was co rrect

, i t i s p o s s i bl e t h a t t h e El ev en th

Ci rcu i t wo u l d h av e ap p l ied i t s ru l e art i cu l at ed i n W i l li a ms t o co n cl u d e t hat Freed m an

s h o u ld h av e b een al l owed t o t es t i fy as t o h i s p ers o n al o b s erv at i o n s o f Ch as e.

9s i gn i fi can t g i v en t h at

, at t ri al

, Ch as e s u g g es ted h e w a s n o t ex p eri en ci n g p ro b l em s

wi t h PN at t h e t i m e o f h i s fal l

.

Ti d wel l co m

p l ai n s on ap p eal t h at t he t ri al co u rt i n h i s m al p ract i ce cas e rel i ed

o n W i l l i a ms

, a cas e n ot ci ted i n Bas h u k ’ s s u m m ary ju d gm en t b ri ef o r at t h e h eari n g

o n th at m o t i o n

, w i t ho u t g i v i n g i t an o pp o rt u n i t y to res p o nd

. Ti d wel l co rrect l y n o t es

t h at a p l ai n ti ff n eed n o t res p o n d t o i s s u es th at are n o t rai s ed i n t h e m o t i o n fo r

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. See Kn i

g h t v Amer i ca n S

uz u ki M o t o r Co r p

. , 2 7 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 9,

3 2 5 ( 2 ) ( 6 1 2 SE2 d 5 4 6 ) (2 0 05 ). Ho wev er, Bas h u k ’ s s um m ary ju d g m en t b ri ef d id

arg u e t h at t h e m al p ract i ce cl ai m was b arred b y Ti d wel l ’ s s et t l em en t in t h e face o f a

p o t en t i al l y v i a b l e ap p eal

, an d t h e b ri ef referen ced as an ex am p l e t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ru l i n g o n Freed m an ’ s t es t i m o ny i n t h e u n derl y i ng t ri al

. 6 W e are aware o f no au t h o ri t y

t h at s ay s a g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju d g m en t m ay b e b as ed o nl y o n cas e l a w c i t e d b y t h e

m o v a n t

. S

ee Den t a l On e As s o cs

. v. JKR Rea l t y As so cs

. , 2 6 9 Ga. 61 6

, 61 7 (1 ) (5 0 1

6 Sp eci fi cal l y

, t he b ri ef po i n t ed t o th e po s si b i l i t y th at Ti d wel l m i g h t co n t en d o n

ap p eal t h at i t wa s e r ro r fo r t h e t ri al co urt t h at h eard Ch as e’ s cas e t o p recl u d e

Freed m an fro m offeri n g o p in io n t es t i m o n y t h at Ch as e’ s PN m ad e h i m m o re l i k el y to

fal l

. Th e tri al ju dg e i n t h is cas e i d en t i fi ed t he ex cl u s i o n o f Freed m an ’ s t es t i m o n y o n

PN as a fact wi t n es s as a p o ss i b l e b as i s fo r rev ers al of t h e v erd ict

. Ev en i f t h i s i s n ot

ex act l y t h e s am e p o t en t i al ap p el l at e arg um en t i d en ti fi ed i n Bas h u k ’ s s u m m ary

ju d g m en t b ri ef, we fi n d t h at t h e b ri ef was s uffi ci en t t o p u t Ti d wel l o n n o t i ce t h at

Bas hu k was co n t en d i ng Ti d wel l m i g h t hav e h ad a v i ab l e ap p eal rel at ed t o l i m i t at i on s

o n Freed m an ’ s t es t i m o n y

.

10SE2 d 4 9 7 ) (1 99 8) (“ It i s t h e ev i d en ce o f reco rd

, n o t t h e as s ert i o n s an d o b ject i on s

m a d e b y c o u n sel at t h e h eari n g

, wh i ch det erm in es th e v al i d i t y or i n val i di t y o f t h e

g ran t o f s u m

m ary j u d gm en t .”). M o reo v er, Bas h u k

, act i n g as Ti d wel l’ s at t o rn ey

, ci t ed

W i l l ia ms i n t he u n d erl y i ng cas e as au t h o ri t y t h at Freed m an ’ s t es t i m o n y s h o u l d n o t b e

l i m i ted

. Th e tran s cri p t o f t h at arg u m en t was i n cl u d ed as an ex h ib i t t o an affi d av i t by

Ti d wel l’ s i n -h o u s e c o u n s el

, su b m i t t ed i n th i s cas e

. Th erefo re, Ti d wel l can n ot

co m p l ai n t h at i t was u n aware o f t h i s cas e law s u p p o rt i n g a po s si b l e b as i s fo r ap p eal

.

Th e t ri al co u rt p ro p erl y g ran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n th e m al pract i ce cl ai m b as ed

o n Ti dwel l ’ s s et t l em en t o f t h e u n d erl y i n g cas e.

2

. Gi v en t h at co n cl u s i o n

, we n eed n o t co n s i d er th e ap p el lan t ’ s ch al len g es t o t h e

o t h er bas es fo r t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n t o g ran t su m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e

m al p ract i ce cl ai m

. Ho wev er, Ti d wel l a l s o has ap p eal ed t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t o n i t s breach o f fi d u ci ary du t y cl ai m

. It arg u es th at th i s cl ai m

, b ecau s e i t i s

b as ed on ev i d en ce th at Bas h u k i n t en t i o n al ly m i s rep res en t ed an d co n cea l e d f a ct s to

h i d e h i s n eg li g en ce, m

u st be co n s i d ered s ep arat el y fro m i t s m al p r a c t i ce cl ai m

.

Ho wev er, p ro x i m at e cau s e al s o i s an el em e n t t h a t m u s t be p ro v en to reco ver u n d er

a b reach o f fi d uci ary d u t y t heo ry

. S ee S un Tr u s t Ba n k v. Mer r i t t

, 2 7 2 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8 5,

4 8 9 (2 ) (6 1 2 SE2 d 81 8 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Ti d wel l ’ s d eci si on t o s et t l e t h e cas e m ean s i t can n ot

11p ro v e p ro x i m at e cau s e t o s u p p o rt i t s b reach o f fi du ci ary cl ai m

. S ee Ro g er s v. No r vel l

,

1 7 4 Ga. Ap p. 4 5 3

, 4 5 8 -5 9 (3 ) (3 30 SE2 d 39 2 ) (1 9 85 ) (p h y s i cal p reced en t o n l y )

( p l a i n t i ffs ’ s et t l em en t o f u n d erl y i ng act i on al s o d em an d s di s m i s s al o f b reach o f

fi du ci ary d u t y cl ai m fo r l ack o f p ro x i m at e cau s e).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Do yl e, C. J., a n d

Bo g g s , J., co ncu r

.

12