medical malpractice claim in Wyoming

2025The Legacy claims the denial of its Rule 50 motion resulted in the jury being improperly instructed. [¶30] “A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a party under W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1) (LexisNexis 2023) ‘if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.’” Cardenas v. Fossen, 2024 WY 117, ¶ 12 , 558 P.3d 943, 948 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)). “[A] motion under W.R.C.P. 50(a) ‘deprives the parties of a determ

2025The Legacy claims the denial of its Rule 50 motion resulted in the jury being improperly instructed. [¶30] “A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a party under W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1) (LexisNexis 2023) ‘if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.’” Cardenas v. Fossen, 2024 WY 117, ¶ 12 , 558 P.3d 943, 948 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)). “[A] motion under W.R.C.P. 50(a) ‘deprives the parties of a determ

2025The Legacy claims the denial of its Rule 50 motion resulted in the jury being improperly instructed. [¶30] “A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a party under W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1) (LexisNexis 2023) ‘if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.’” Cardenas v. Fossen, 2024 WY 117, ¶ 12 , 558 P.3d 943, 948 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)). “[A] motion under W.R.C.P. 50(a) ‘deprives the parties of a determ

2021While negligence may include medical malpractice, see Garnett v. Coyle, 2001 WY 94, ¶ 24 , 33 P.3d 114, 121 (Wyo. 2001) (noting the elements of a medical malpractice claim largely track the elements of a negligence claim), nothing in the plain language of § 1-39-110 suggests the legislature intended to limit the statute to medical malpractice claims. [¶29] The Hospital’s reliance on the Medical Review Panel Act is not helpful.

2021While negligence may include medical malpractice, see Garnett v. Coyle, 2001 WY 94, ¶ 24 , 33 P.3d 114, 121 (Wyo. 2001) (noting the elements of a medical malpractice claim largely track the elements of a negligence claim), nothing in the plain language of § 1-39-110 suggests the legislature intended to limit the statute to medical malpractice claims. [¶29] The Hospital’s reliance on the Medical Review Panel Act is not helpful.

2020Thus, the elements of a legal malpractice claim are: “1) the existence of a duty; 2) the accepted standard of legal care; 3) that the attorney departed from the accepted standard of care; and 4) that the attorney’s conduct was the legal cause of the injuries suffered.” Gayhart v. Goody, 2004 WY 112, ¶ 16 , 98 P.3d 164, 169 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Moore, 855 P.2d at 1248 ). [¶10] Our legal malpractice precedent is somewhat “in conflict” over whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

2020Thus, the elements of a legal malpractice claim are: “1) the existence of a duty; 2) the accepted standard of legal care; 3) that the attorney departed from the accepted standard of care; and 4) that the attorney’s conduct was the legal cause of the injuries suffered.” Gayhart v. Goody, 2004 WY 112, ¶ 16 , 98 P.3d 164, 169 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Moore, 855 P.2d at 1248 ). [¶10] Our legal malpractice precedent is somewhat “in conflict” over whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

2020Metzger, 709 P.2d at 418 (emphasis added). [¶19] The Court completed its analysis by first defining what constitutes actual notice of a medical malpractice claim.

2020Metzger, 709 P.2d at 418-20 .

2020His malpractice claim, however, sounds in tort and therefore does not fall under the WGCA contract exception. [¶9] In Moore v. Lubnau, this Court applied the medical malpractice framework to legal malpractice. 855 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Wyo. 1993) (“We conclude that the test applicable in our medical malpractice cases should also apply in the analogous situation of a legal malpractice claim.”).

2020Thus, the elements of a legal malpractice claim are: “1) the existence of a duty; 2) the accepted standard of legal care; 3) that the attorney departed from the accepted standard of care; and 4) that the attorney’s conduct was the legal cause of the injuries suffered.” Gayhart v. Goody, 2004 WY 112, ¶ 16 , 98 P.3d 164, 169 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Moore, 855 P.2d at 1248 ). [¶10] Our legal malpractice precedent is somewhat “in conflict” over whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

2009Harris v. Grizzle, Supra. 7.

1998Stat. §§ 1-3-107(a)(i), 1-3-107(a)(iv), or the continuous treatment rule discussed in Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667, 669-70 (Wyo.1988), the period in which Mr. Edwards could bring suit was exhausted prior to his death.

1998Stat. §§ l-3-107(a)(i), l-3-107(a)(iv), or the continuous treatment rule discussed in Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667, 669-70 (Wyo.1988), the period in which Mr. Edwards could bring suit was exhausted prior to his death.

1989Notwithstanding that, “[a]n insanity defense after all, unlike a medical malpractice claim, does not require expert testimony as a prerequisite for presentation to a jury.” Motes v. State, 256 Ga. 831 , 353 S.E.2d 348, 349 (1987).

1989Notwithstanding that, “[a]n insanity defense after all, unlike a medical malpractice claim, does not require expert testimony as a prerequisite for presentation to a jury.” Motes v. State, 256 Ga. 831 , 353 S.E.2d 348, 349 (1987).