CHICAGO — An Illinois appeals court has dismissed a legal malpractice suit, saying a doctor waited too long to accuse two law firms of costing him his medical license and of waiting too long to seek compensatory damages on his behalf.
Bruce Abrahamson’s lawsuit had named as defendants attorney Thomas Dutton and the Chicago law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as the firm of Brown, Udell, Pomerantz & Delrahim Ltd. and its legal team of Jeffrey R. Beck, David A. Epstein, Glenn L. Udell and Daniel L. Braun.
Court records indicate Abrahamson has been pursuing a medical license in Illinois for more than three decades and at times had used the services of both firms in litigations against the state and the Illinois Department for Professional and Financial Regulations, which have denied his applications, citing concerns about his transcript and the misstatement of material facts related to his history.
Abrahamson first applied for an Illinois license in 1986 after completing medical school in Mexico. In 1998, he again unsuccessfully applied for a state license, setting off myriad legal actions and rulings that still left him on the outside looking in when it came to securing the credentials.
Abrahamson’s suit against Greenberg Traurig argues the firm erred in not seeking compensatory damages from the state on his behalf, while his claim against Brown, Udell, Pomerantz & Delrahim alleged that firm failed to inform him that the statutes of limitations in the case were running thin.
Abrahamson asserted the faulty actions of both legal teams essentially left him with no avenue to pursue compensation for the denial of his medical license.
A three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court, however, disagreed. In rendering the appellate court decision, Justice Daniel J. Pierce asserted that the “plaintiff cannot escape the operation of the six-year statute of repose, which expired sometime in 2013. [The] plaintiff did not initiate this malpractice action until December 2015, well outside the outer limit for asserting a malpractice claim premised on the conduct alleged in his amended complaint.”
Justices P. Scott Neville Jr. and Michael B. Hyman concurred.
The order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23, which means it cannot be use as legal precedent by any other parties except in special circumstances.