 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. Bayhealth2/4/2005
on because one or more doctors who treated Plaintiff were either the direct or apparent agents of Defendant Bayhealth and therefore summary judgment would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to amend his Complaint because the error in originally naming Bayhealth, Inc. rather than Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. was a minor misnomer. Plaintiff further asserts that Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Kent General Hospital has been given notice throughout this litigation that it should have been named in the Complaint because the named physician defendants provided medical services to the patients of Kent General Hospital for the sole benefit of Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Bayhealth, Inc. has filed numerous responsive pleadings on behalf of Kent General Hospital and Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. cannot claim it would be prejudiced in maintaining a defense if the Motion to Amend is granted.
Defendant Bayhealth, Inc. argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend involves more than a mere misnomer because Bayhealth, Inc. is a separate and distinct entity from Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. The Court recognizes that Bayhealth, Inc. is legitimately a separate corporate entity from Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. In the Court's view, however, the requirements of Rule 15(c) have been met even if Plaintiff's request to amend is considered more than a misnomer.
Under Superior Court Civil Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading to add, substitute or drop parties. Rule 15(a) "may extend to bring in separate entities, not originally named as defendants, and to permit such amendment after the statute of limitations has expired if the requirements of Rule 15(c) are satisfied." Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." But this "liberality must be tempered by the requirements" of subsection (c) of Rule 15. Rule 15(c) permits an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if: (1) the basic claim arose out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements were fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.
In the present case, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Bayhealth, Inc. d/b/a Kent General Hospital. The record shows that process was served on JoAnn Davis on behalf of Bayhealth, Inc. on July 17, 2003. Ms. Davis serves as the Risk Manager of Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. and originally answered Plaintiff's Interrogatories directed to Bayhealth, Inc. on behalf of Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Kent General Hospital. Because Ms. Davis accepted process for Bayhealth, Inc. and filed responsive pleadings in this matter for Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Kent General Hospital, it cannot be said that Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. was not on notice of the Complaint or that it would now suffer prejudice by being added to this Complaint. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., through Ms. Davis, also was directly aware of the particular allegations in the cause of action because it filed answers to interrogatories on behalf of Kent General Hospital. It is also reasonable to assume that Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. knew or should have known that it should have been named in the original complaint because the Complaint was filed directly against Kent General Hospital and what appeared to be the corporate enti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|