Background
Sheryl Gentry, acting as guardian and conservator for Mark Crader, sued attorney Craig J. Concannon for legal malpractice. She alleged that Concannon negligently failed to file a timely 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department and several employees for deliberate indifference to Crader’s serious medical needs while he was jailed.
Crader had ingested an unknown quantity of pills before arriving at the jail following a police pursuit. Jail personnel sent him to a hospital, where a physician found him fit for confinement and returned him with discharge instructions. Deputies then placed Crader on a 30-minute watch and repeatedly observed him. After deputies found him unresponsive with labored breathing and foam at his mouth, they summoned an ambulance. Crader suffered an anoxic brain injury. Concannon later pursued medical-malpractice claims against the hospital and physician but did not sue the sheriff’s department or its employees.
Concannon moved for summary judgment, arguing that the proposed § 1983 action could not have succeeded and therefore his failure to bring it did not cause recoverable damages. Gentry principally objected that many of Concannon’s asserted facts relied on depositions taken in the earlier medical-malpractice case. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Concannon.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that sworn deposition testimony from the earlier litigation was permissible supporting material under Missouri Rule 74.04 at the summary-judgment stage. The relevant question was whether the depositions could support the motion’s factual assertions, not whether the deposition transcripts themselves ultimately would be admissible at trial in the same form.
Gentry did not properly deny Concannon’s numbered factual statements with specific references to evidence showing a genuine dispute. Her objections that statements were hearsay, immaterial, or irrelevant did not satisfy Rule 74.04(c)(2), and she admitted the substance of many challenged statements subject only to her unsuccessful objection. The court therefore deemed Concannon’s material facts admitted.
Those admitted facts established that Crader could not have prevailed on the underlying § 1983 deliberate-indifference theory. Jail personnel obtained medical care, relied on the hospital’s fitness determination, monitored Crader, checked and roused him when concerns arose, and called an ambulance when his condition visibly deteriorated. Because the proposed civil-rights claim failed as a matter of law, Gentry could not prove that Concannon’s alleged negligence caused damages in the required “case within a case.” The court denied Gentry’s remaining arguments concerning medical-causation and legal-expert testimony as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Depositions from earlier litigation may support factual statements on summary judgment when their substance reflects evidence that could be presented at trial, even if the transcripts themselves might face trial-admissibility objections.
- A Rule 74.04 response must expressly admit or deny each numbered fact, and every denial must cite specific evidence demonstrating a genuine factual dispute; objections alone do not suffice.
- A legal-malpractice plaintiff alleging failure to file a claim must show that the omitted claim would have succeeded. Failure of the underlying claim defeats causation in the malpractice action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural rigor required when opposing summary judgment in Missouri. A party cannot prevent asserted facts from being deemed admitted merely by challenging the supporting material or labeling the facts irrelevant; the party must provide properly cited, contradictory evidence through Rule 74.04’s numbered-paragraph framework.
For legal-malpractice cases arising from an allegedly missed claim, the opinion also illustrates the dispositive role of the “case within a case.” Even assumed attorney negligence cannot support liability when the undisputed record establishes that the unfiled action would have failed on its merits.