BEAUMONT – A woman claiming a local law firm dropped the ball on her injury lawsuit is asking the Ninth Court of Appeals to reverse a summary judgment win in favor of the firm.
The appeal stems from a legal malpractice lawsuit brought by Rachel Stevens against attorney Adam Terrell and his law firm, Weller, Green, Toups & Terrell.
In June 2006, Stevens had the Mirena intrauterine birth control device inserted by her OBGYN. Soon after, she began to suffer an array of ailments. A physician recommended removal of her gallbladder but even after the surgery, Stevens’ pain and medical problems continued.
On Aug. 15, 2010, Stevens learned the Mirena IUD perforated her uterus and migrated into her abdominal cavity. Surgery was performed to remove the device.
Nine days later, Stevens met with Terrell, who agreed to represent her on a contingency fee basis. They did not have a written attorney-client contract.
By Jan. 28, 2011, Terrell still had not secured a medical expert, according to Stevens. Terrell had also allegedly told her that the medical malpractice suit had been filed.
“Between January 2011 and early 2013, Stevens believed Terrell was actively pursuing her case,” Stevens’ appellate brief states. “During this time, Terrell never advised Stevens that he was not pursuing her case. Had Terrell done so, Stevens would have sought out another lawyer.”
The statute of limitations on Stevens’ claims lapsed in December 2012. On Feb. 11, 2013, Terrell informed Stevens that he would not be pursuing the med-mal claim on her behalf.
In April 2013, Stevens had a conversation with Terrell about pursuing a product liability claim against the IUD manufacture.
According to Stevens, Terrell initially discouraged her from pursuing the claim but changed his mind after she informed him that she would retain a different attorney.
A suit was filed against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals but Terrell and his firm failed to timely file a fact sheet and the case was dismissed, court records show.
“Terrell admits that the case was dismissed because nothing concerning the product liability case was properly calendared,” the brief states. “Although Terrell received the dismissal order when it was filed, Terrell and his office concealed the dismissal from Stevens for almost a year.”
The case was dismissed on Dec. 23, 2014. Stevens claims she repeatedly inquired about her case before the dismissal but was ignored by the firm. In April 2015, she was told, “Terell was ‘still working on it.’”
“This, of course, was a misrepresentation because the case had been dismissed more than four months prior,” the brief states. “Stevens attempted to coordinate a meeting with Terrell to discuss the case, but Terrell did not show up and the meeting was never rescheduled. Terrell and his staff did not disclose to Stevens that her product liability case had been dismissed.
“Rather, just as with the medical malpractice claim, Terrell and his staff led Stevens on to believe that this case was active.”
On Dec. 9, 2015, Stevens was finally able to meet with Terrell, who allegedly admitted that his office “dropped the ball” but that the case was primarily dismissed because “the judge was a fucking bitch.”
Federal Judge Cathey Seibel presided over the product liability suit.
Terrell offered Stevens $20,000 to settle her legal malpractice claim but asked her to wait until January 2016. She sued him on March 8, 2016 over his handling of both the med-mal and product liability case.
In her suit, Stevens alleged that Terrell breached his fiduciary duty and committed unconscionable conduct in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by concealing the failures and dismissals to his benefit in hopes that the statute of limitations on any negligence claim would lapse.
Court records show Terrell moved for summary judgment on claims arising from the med-mal suit, arguing that the statute of limitations had lapsed.
After some back and forth with amended pleadings and motions, the trial court granted Terrell summary judgment on Aug. 30, 2018, court records show.
Stevens appealed and the case was submitted on briefs on Aug. 10.
In its brief, the firm argues the trial court properly granted summary judgment on Stevens’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim based on the anti-fracturing rule.
The firm also contends Stevens did not present any reliable expert testimony to support her claim.
Judge Baylor Wortham, 136th District Court, presided over the legal malpractice claim.
Stevens is represented by attorneys Lance and David Kassab.
Houston attorney Andrew Johnson represents Terrell and his firm.
Appeals case No. 09-18-00365-CV