Bowden v. Gannaway
310 Mich. App. 499
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bowden filed two-party attorney malpractice suit after allegedly missing a timely ORS disability retirement appeal.
- Plaintiff Janell Bowden sought non-duty disability retirement; ORS denied her claim in 2008.
- Attorney Gannaway allegedly failed to file a timely appeal based on misfiling and other reasons.
- Independent medical assessments supported disability, but no certification that Bowden was totally and permanently disabled.
- Trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8)/(10), concluding Polania controlled and prevented recovery.
- Appeal affirmed de novo as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause for underlying claim | Bowden would prevail if timely appeal filed | Polania bars recovery absent certification | No proximate cause; Bowden would not prevail even with timely appeal |
| Impact of Polania on preexisting law | Polania retroactively clarifies standard | Polania clarifies existing statute; not new rule | Polania clarified intent; not new rule; precludes recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Polania v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 299 Mich App 322 (2013) (establishes requirement of medical advisor certification for non-duty disability)
- Gordon v City of Bloomfield Hills, 207 Mich App 231 (1994) (requires considering all record evidence in review)
- Reinhard Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich 579 (1994) (for proximate cause framework in legal malpractice)
- Auto Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468 (2002) (standard for reviewing summary disposition on negligence claims)