 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayward v. Valley Vista Care Corp.9/28/2001
was not prejudiced); Flores v. Cameron County, 92 F.3d 258, 273 (5 th Cir. 1996)(finding that plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint to state her representative capacity as temporary administrator of the estate because the amendment "[sought] to correct a technical difficulty."); Frankel v. Styer, 209 F.Supp. 509, 510 (E.D. Pa. 1962)(allowing plaintiff to amend complaint to bring suit as administrator, instead of as guardian and trustee ad litem, because "the substitution is merely a change of fiduciaries of the persons in whose behalf the action was brought.").
In this case, by substituting the real party in interest, Alfred would merely be changing the representative capacity in which the suit is being brought. Consequently, as the aforementioned cases demonstrate, Alfred should be allowed to substitute the real party in interest and relate the amendment back to the date of the original complaint. Allowing such a substitution would promote the liberal policy behind the rules, as it would allow the case to proceed on the merits, thus preventing it from being dismissed on a technicality. Further support of this conclusion can be found in the lack of evidence in the record indicating bad faith on the part of Alfred and the fact that the respondents will not be prejudiced by such a result.
In accordance with the applicable standard of review in this case, this Court must determine if the trial court correctly applied the appropriate legal standards through an "exercise of reason." We disagree with the trial court's interpretation and application of Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a), (c), and 17(a) for the reasons set forth. Consequently, we hold that the district court's denial of Alfred's motion to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion and the decision of the district court is reversed and remanded.
B. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS ON HAYWARD'S CONTRACT-BASED CLAIMS.
Idaho Code § 6-1012 provides in relevant part:
In any case, claim or action for damages due to injury to or death of any person, brought against any physician and surgeon or other provider of health care, including, without limitation, any dentist, . . . hospital or nursing home, or any person vicariously liable for the negligence of them or any of them, on account of the provision of or failure to provide health care or on account of any matter incidental or related thereto, such claimant or plaintiff must, as an essential part of his or her case in chief, affirmatively prove by direct expert testimony and by a preponderance of all the competent evidence, that such defendant then and there negligently failed to meet the applicable standard of health care practice of the community in which such care allegedly was or should have been provided, as such standard existed at the time and place of the alleged negligence of such physician and surgeon, hospital or other such health care provider and as such standard then and there existed with respect to the class of health care provider that such defendant then and there belonged to and in which capacity he, she, or it was functioning. Such individual providers of health care shall be judged in such cases in comparison with similarly trained and qualified providers of the same class in the same community, taking into account his or her training, experience, and fields of medical specialization, if any . . . . I.C. § 6-1012 (emphasis added).
In an Idaho Supreme Court case dating back to 1932, this Court explored whether a plaintiff could bring both a contract claim and a malpractice claim against a health care professional whose negligence resulted in injury. Trimming v.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|