Opinion ID: 2375795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: is an agreed order of dismissal a favorable termination of the malpractice action?

Text: Shortly after the malpractice action against the doctors was filed, the order of dismissal was filed. It was, by its terms, an agreed order of dismissal. The order provided that the amended complaint against the doctors was dismissed, with prejudice. It was signed by the plaintiff, Browning, and by his counsel, Raine and Highfield, and by counsel for the doctors. The document did not entail any compromise or settlement; it simply and effectively terminated the lawsuit as far as the defendant doctors were concerned. The dismissal declared, in effect, that there was no malpractice on the part of the defendants. The purpose of this prerequisite to a malicious prosecution suit is to show that the action against the defendant was unsuccessful. The basis for the requirement is that courts will not tolerate inconsistent judgments on the same action between the same parties. 52 Am.Jur.2d, Malpractice, Sec. 29, Van Arsdale v. Caswell, Ky., 311 S.W.2d 404 (1958); Smith v. Kidd, Ky., 246 S.W.2d 155 (1951). In Kentucky, no particular form of termination in civil actions has been required. Since the order of dismissal effectively terminates the litigation, with respect to the doctors, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the order constituted a favorable termination so as to support this action.