Court rejects "serious impairment" defense in legal malpractice case.

Adrianne Williams was hurt in a car wreck.  She retained Dan Rusch, an experienced attorney, to represent her, however, unfortunately he failed to file suit within the pertinent statute of limitations.  She brought an action against him and secured a verdict of $145,000.00.  Mr. Rusch appealed claiming Williams hadn't suffered a serious impairment, and his attorneys "disingenuously" claimed that Williams' injury was not "life-altering." 

The court noted that after three years of constant back pain and limitations on activity, Williams' spine was fused surgically.  She endured years of PT, nerve blocks, use of a TENS unit and was unable to perform normal household tasks or recreational activities.  She is required to take pain medication daily and has been told that her leg will not improve.  The appellate court concluded that the trial judge was correct in concluding that she had suffered a "serious impairment" as a matter of law.  The case is Williams v. Rusch, et al.