Attorney malpractice; Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko; Whether defendants' alleged professional negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries; Polania v. State Employees' Ret. Sys.; MCL 38.24 (governing the award of non-duty disability retirement benefits to state employees); Gordon v. City of Bloomfield Hills; Office of Retirement Services (ORS)

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 3/24/15.] The court held that because plaintiffs could not establish that plaintiff-Janell Bowden would have prevailed had defendants filed a timely appeal of the initial denial of her application for benefits, plaintiffs could not show that defendants' alleged negligence was a proximate cause of their alleged damages and, thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing their claim. Plaintiff filed an application with Michigan's ORS for non-duty disability retirement benefits. The physician designated by the State to examine her application and medical records concluded that she was not totally and permanently disabled, and that she "should be able to return to her past job." In a letter, the ORS denied her application and informed her that she had 60 days from the date of the letter to appeal the decision. Plaintiff engaged codefendant-Gannaway to represent her on appeal. "However, the appeal was not filed timely." Plaintiffs filed a professional negligence case against defendants, based upon the failure to file a timely appeal of the ORS denial of the non-duty retirement. In order to prevail on their legal malpractice claim, plaintiffs had to show that, but for the failure to timely appeal the denial of Janell's application for non-duty disability retirement benefits, she would have been awarded the benefits. Plaintiffs argued that, before Polania, an appeal of the Retirement System's denial of Janell's application would have been governed by Gordon, which required a reviewing court to "consider all the evidence on the record, not just that supporting the agency's decision." Plaintiffs asserted that had defendants filed a timely appeal, "a review of the 'whole record' would have resulted in reversal of the denial because assessments from several independent physicians clearly established the disability." Contrary to plaintiffs' insistence, this matter did "not involve the question of the retroactive application of a new rule or principle." The court noted preliminarily that the statute interpreted by the Polania court was a predecessor statute. It was undisputed that the medical advisor had not certified Janell "as totally and permanently disabled, and that without such certification, she was ineligible for benefits under the plain language of MCL 38.24(1)(b)." Affirmed.