The trial court properly rendered judgment for the defendant, an attorney who represented a child in a suit for dog bite injuries and overruled the plaintiff physician's objection to the report of an attorney trial referee finding that there never was a meeting of the minds between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the payment of the plaintiff's bill for services rendered to the child. The pro se plaintiff, Dr. Charles Gianetti, commenced an action against the pro se defendant, Attorney Joseph Gerardi, sounding in breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The matter was transferred to an attorney trial referee who found the following facts. The plaintiff provided medical and surgical treatment to a child who sustained severe dog bite injuries. The plaintiff submitted a bill found to be reasonable and customary to the child's mother and the insurance carrier of the dog's owner. The plaintiff did not submit his bill to the defendant, who represented the child in an action against the dog's owner. The plaintiff's bill was never paid. Upon request by the defendant, the plaintiff declined to provide his bill and medical records unless he received a letter of protection from the defendant. The defendant agreed to submit the bill to the insurance company if sent to him and to provide a letter of protection for any reasonable amount not paid by the insurer. The referee concluded that "[t]here was never a meeting of the minds between [the] plaintiff and [the] defendant on the issues of payment. . ." The referee recommended that judgment enter for the defendant. The trial court overruled the plaintiff's objection to the report and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection and rendering judgment for the defendant. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. The panel adopted the trial court's memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the facts and applicable law on the issues raised. No further discussion was found necessary.

VIEW FULL CASE