Speed v. Muhanna
Georgia Court of Appeals
619 S.E.2d 324 (2005)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In 1999, Speed (plaintiff) hurt his foot at a Sports Authority store and hired Scott Zahler to represent him. The client agreement stated that Zahler would represent Speed in any claims Speed may have “against Sports Authority, and any other Defendants later named or identified as a result of” the incident at Sports Authority. In 2002, Speed was treated for deep venous thrombosis in his leg by Dr. Muhanna (defendant). After the treatment, Zahler contacted Muhanna, seeking to depose him for purposes of Speed’s suit against Sports Authority. Muhanna was hesitant to give a deposition. Thus, at Muhanna’s request, Zahler sent him a letter stating the following: “This is not a medical malpractice case and neither now or [sic] in the future will you be subject to any type of malpractice claim.” Upon receiving the letter, Muhanna agreed to be deposed by Zahler. In 2004, using a different attorney, Speed brought a medical malpractice suit against Muhanna for the deep venous thrombosis treatment. The trial court granted Muhanna summary judgment on account of Zahler’s letter. Speed appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackburn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
