Opinion ID: 865059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligence - Bowie

Text: ¶43. Bowie asserts a collateral estoppel argument on the issue of liability claiming that Bowie established that the Defendants breached their legal duty of care as a matter of law. Bowie claims that if the Defendants are allowed to withdraw the admissions he would suffer additional delay, expenses, and effort. ¶44. This Court in Bowie affirmed a trial court ruling to grant summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to timely designate an expert in a medical malpractice case. Bowie, 861 So. 2d at 1043. “The trial judge made a specific finding that the plaintiffs had failed to show 19 any excusable neglect as to why the designation of the expert was not timely filed.” Id. at 1042. Contrary to Bowie’s assertions, this Court made no actual finding of legal malpractice in Bowie. Therefore, I believe that this issue is without merit. ¶45. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part with the majority opinion. GRAVES, J., JOINS THIS OPINION. 20