## Facts

- Catherine Doucette, an elderly patient with serious medical conditions, received orthopedic care from Dr. Charles F. McCuskey after an auto accident and later developed bedsores while in extended-care treatment.
- Doucette’s guardian, Milan Jeffers, replaced McCuskey with another physician, who advised Jeffers there was no malpractice and the bedsores were not attributable to McCuskey.
- Jeffers retained attorney Samuel T. Bull, who filed a medical malpractice action against McCuskey and a negligence claim against the hospital.
- Before filing suit, Bull did not review medical records, consult physicians, or obtain expert evaluation of the standard of care.
- Bull pursued the malpractice case without meaningful substantiation efforts (including limited discovery and no expert support) and sought a small settlement.
- The malpractice trial ended in a defense verdict for McCuskey.
- McCuskey then sued Bull for abuse of process, alleging Bull used the malpractice suit to coerce a nuisance-value settlement rather than to obtain adjudication on the merits.
- A jury awarded McCuskey $35,000 compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages; the trial court denied Bull’s post-trial motions, and Bull appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Bull committed abuse of process by using the malpractice action for an ulterior purpose and committing a willful improper act in the use of process.
2. Whether the compensatory and punitive damage awards, and the denial of post-trial relief, required reversal.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for McCuskey.
- The court held there was substantial evidence of both elements of abuse of process: (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) a willful act in using process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.
- The court upheld the compensatory and punitive damages awards and affirmed the denial of Bull’s post-trial motions.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process is the misuse of legal process for a purpose other than that intended by law.
- The elements of abuse of process are: (1) an ulterior purpose in using process, and (2) a willful act in the use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.
- A weak or even unfounded lawsuit, without more, does not establish abuse of process; there must be a definite improper act or threat using process to pursue an objective not legitimate in the proceeding.
- Abuse of process is distinct from malicious prosecution; it focuses on improper use of process and collateral objectives, not merely lack of probable cause.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and damages where the evidence permitted a jury to find that an attorney prosecuted a malpractice case not to secure adjudication, but to pressure a nuisance settlement, and committed willful improper acts in the litigation sufficient to constitute abuse of process under Nevada law.


Bull v. McCuskey, 615 P.2d 957 (Nev. 1980)