LINDA GAIL LINDSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
H.H. RAULERSON JUNIOR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND TRINIDAD GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY AND/OR SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Lindsey sued Dr. Trinidad Garcia for medical malpractice within the statute of limitations, but failed to name Dr. Manuel Garcia, the surgeon who actually performed the procedure. After the two-year limitations period expired, Lindsey sought to amend her complaint to add Dr. Manuel Garcia. The court held that the relation-back doctrine does not apply when a completely new and separate party is added to a lawsuit, as opposed to correcting a misnomer of an already-named defendant.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the relation-back doctrine applies only to correct misnomers or misdescriptions of parties already named in the original complaint, not to add entirely new and separate parties. Because Dr. Manuel Garcia was a completely separate party not named by any description in the original complaint, relation back was inapplicable and the amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
[1] An amended complaint adding a new party after the statute of limitations has run will not relate back to the date of the original complaint unless the new party was misna…
[2] The relation back doctrine applies when a party is incorrectly described in a timely filed pleading, not when a completely new party is added.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An amendment to a timely filed pleading will relate back where a party is not correctly described.”
Establishes the basic rule for when relation back applies—only to misnomers, not new parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Manuel Garcia performed surgery on appellant Lindsey. Dr. Trinidad Garcia, Dr. Manuel Garcia's wife and associate in a Professional Association, p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malpractice Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a malpractice claim with prejudice upon application of the Statute of Limitations. § 95.11, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Dr. Manuel Garcia performed surgery upon the appellant. Dr. Trinidad Garcia, his wife, was his associate in a Professional Association and participated in the case.
Plaintiffs initial suit against Dr. Trinidad Garcia did not include Dr. Manuel Garcia as a party. After the running of the two year Statute the plaintiff sought leave to add a party. Following a non-final appeal, Lindsey v. H.M. Raulerson, Junior, Memorial Hospital, 452 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), appellant was permitted to file an amended complaint.
The trial court then entered a final order of dismissal rejecting plaintiffs argument that the amended complaint should “relate back” to the date of filing of the initial complaint.
It is undisputed that Dr. Manuel Garcia had direct knowledge of the original claim and even participated in prelitigation correspondence with respect to it. He also was aware of the filing of the original complaint against Dr. Trinidad Garcia.. The initial complaint was filed a few days prior to the running of the statute. Several months passed before plaintiff first sought leave to amend.
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that this was not a mere misdescription of a party or a “misnomer.” The facts here are insufficient to support application of the relation back principle.
An amendment to a timely filed pleading will relate back where a party is not correctly described. Cabot v. Clearwater Const. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1956); State ex rel. First Trust & Savings Bank v. Sutherland, 106 Fla. 103, 142 So. 883 (1932); Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
However, in this case there was no misnomer, rather a totally separate party was added. Here, the defendant was not named in the initial complaint by any description. Their P.A. was not involved. Here, there was no reason to conclude that Manuel Garcia should have considered himself to be the party who was sued. Here, it cannot be said that Trinidad was used by Manuel as a shield, or that he engaged in any fraudulent, or other unacceptable conduct causing the prejudice to the plaintiff. The relation back rule, therefore, should not be applied in this case. See Michelin Reifenwerke, A.G. v. Roose, 462 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (company sued sufficiently independent of company sought to be added so as to preclude relation back). Louis v. South Broward Hospital Dis trict, 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (relation back is inapplicable where effect is to bring in new parties); Fatal v. Florida Keys Memorial Hospital, 452 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (statute of limitations against insurance company begins to run on date of injury, not on date of discovery that the tortfeasor is insured); Garrido v. Markus, Winter and Spitale Law Firm, 358 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (relation back applies only where there has been a misnomer); Johnson v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc., 458 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (relation back permits correction of misnomers, but not addition of new parties).
We therefore affirm the final order of the trial court.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…recognize that generally an amendment which adds a new party to the action does not relate back to the original complaint. See Troso v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 538 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lindsey v. H.H. Raulerson Jr. Memorial Hosp., 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(amended complaint in medical malpractice action which did not merely correct misnomer or misdescription of party but instead added another physician as a totally separate party did not relate back to date of initial complaint); F…
-
Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's OF Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…of a new party to an action will not relate back to the original complaint. See Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Troso v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 538 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lindsey v. H.H. Raulerson Jr. Mem’l Hosp., 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Louis v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Exceptions to this general rule are made, however, where the amendment is merely the correction of a misnomer. See Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 504 So.…
-
Rayner v. Aircraft Spruce-Advantage Inc., 38 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…not apply where a new party is added. Id.; see also, Patel v. School Bd. of Volusia County, 813 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Troso v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Assoc., Inc., 538 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lindsey v. H.H. Raulerson Junior Mem’l Hosp., 505 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Louis v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. dism., 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978). An exception to this general rule has been created by Florida’s district courts for separate parties with a suffic…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1956)
- Mrs. Betty Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Roscell Louis v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. f/a/o/b/o Mem'l Hosp., 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Carlyle S. Fabal and Nancy G. Fabal v. Fla. Keys Mem'l Hosp., 452 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Songer v. Citrus Cnty., 462 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Johnson v. Taylor Rental Ctr., Inc., 458 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- S. Fruit Distribs. v. Carlton, 106 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1932)
- White v. State, 358 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Garrido v. Markus, 358 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Lindsey v. H.M. Raulerson, 452 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)