Hinton v. Masek
2014 Ohio 2890
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Hinton was employed by Trinity Highway Products from 1993–2012, last as a kettle helper cleaning a molten zinc kettle, and was terminated for insubordination after refusing to clean the kettle.
- Hinton filed a grievance; union suggested a last-chance agreement, which he rejected, and termination was upheld.
- In Feb. 2012, Hinton retained Masek to pursue age-discrimination claims; fee agreement formed; suit filed in Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas and later removed to federal court.
- Settlement negotiations culminated in an August 21, 2012 oral agreement for $7,000 in exchange for dismissal and release of all claims, which Hinton objected to as unauthorised.
- Masek withdrew as counsel in Trinity litigation; Hinton proceeded pro se; Trinity litigation ultimately resulted in summary judgment for Trinity in district court.
- On Dec. 14, 2012, Hinton filed a pro se legal-malpractice action against Masek; Masek answered and counterclaimed for fees; the trial court set a schedule requiring expert disclosures by July 11, 2013; Hinton failed to disclose an expert report by that date.
- In Sept./Oct. 2013, Hinton submitted letters claiming an expert opinion, but these documents were unrelated to a malpractice expert report and the trial court granted summary judgment for Masek on Oct. 21, 2013, finding no evidence of a breach causing damages and that expert testimony was required unless the case was within a layperson’s ordinary knowledge.
- Hinton appeals arguing lack of need for an expert; the appellate court affirms, concluding no genuine issue of material fact from lack of an expert report and that Masek did not breach a professional duty proximately causing harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove legal malpractice | Hinton argues no expert is needed. | Masek argues expert testimony is generally required. | No; expert testimony required; lack of expert report supports summary judgment. |
| Whether Masek breached a professional duty and caused damages | Hinton contends withdrawal/settlement decisions breached duty and caused harm. | Masek contends actions did not breach duties or cause damages. | No genuine issue of material fact; no proof of breach causing damages under standard malpractice elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprague v. Simon, 144 Ohio App.3d 437 (11th Dist.2001) (elements of legal malpractice; duty, breach, damages)
- Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103 (1989) (mandatory expert testimony in malpractice actions)
- Brunstetter v. Keating, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0057 (2003-Ohio-3270) (expert testimony generally required)
- Bloom v. Dieckmann, 11 Ohio App.3d 202 (1st Dist.1983) (expert testimony required for negligence claims)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo review standard on summary judgment)
- Peer v. Sayers, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0014 (2011-Ohio-5439) (appellate review and evidentiary standards)