Santangelo v. Green
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01523-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-24-2006 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Fictitious parties - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Relation back of amendment - M.R.C.P. 15(c) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): SOUTHWICK, GRIFFIS AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2004 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT. Case Number: 02-CIV189(B) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | NATALIE SANTANGELO |
ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIARD |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES GREEN, JR., M.D. | CLINTON M. GUENTHER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Fictitious parties - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Relation back of amendment - M.R.C.P. 15(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Natalie Santangelo filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Meridian HMA, Inc., d/b/a Riley Memorial Hospital and against five unknown defendants. Approximately one year later, and after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Santangelo filed an amended complaint naming James Green, Jr. M.D. and Ann Riley, L.P.N. as defendants. Dr. Green moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and Santangelo appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Santangelo argues that the amendment was not barred by the statute of limitations because it related back to the date of the original complaint pursuant to M.R.C.P. 9(h). Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(c)(2), proper substitution of a fictitious defendant with the defendant's true name will relate back to the date of the original complaint. Dr. Green argues that the amendment was not a proper Rule 9(h) substitution, but instead constituted a Rule 15(c) change of the party against whom Santangelo's claim was asserted. The style of Santangelo's original complaint and that of the amended complaint were identical but for the addition of Dr. Green and Nurse Riley. No John or Jane Doe defendants had been deleted. Therefore, Santangelo failed to properly substitute Dr. Green and Nurse Riley for fictitious defendants. Santangelo was required to exercise due diligence to discover Dr. Green’s identity within the limitations period in order to substitute Dr. Green under Rule 9(h). Santangelo did not show that anyone had reviewed her medical records during the limitations period to determine who authorized or administered the Phenergan injection. Consequently, there was no evidence to support a finding that, before the running of the statute of limitations, Santangelo made a reasonably diligent effort to ascertain the identity of the culpable physician. Had Santangelo exercised reasonable diligence, she could have ascertained Dr. Green's identity from her medical records as well as from her knowledge that Dr. Green was her treating physician. Since Santangelo failed to effect a substitution of a fictitious party under Rule 9(h), her amendment adding Dr. Green must satisfy the provisions of Rule 15(c) regarding changing the party against whom a claim is asserted to prevent time bar by the statute of limitations. Santangelo's claim against Dr. Green arose out of the same incident alleged in the original pleading, namely, the tortious administration of Phenergan to Santangelo. Thus, the first requirement for relation back of the amendment was satisfied. However, the amendment did not satisfy the second and third requisites for relation back because Dr. Green did not have timely notice of the action or timely knowledge that, but for a mistake, the action would have been brought against him. There was no showing that, within the time provided by Rule 15(c), Dr. Green had notice of the institution of the action or that Dr. Green knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning his identity, Santangelo would have named him in her original complaint. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
