Opinion
C.A. No.: 00C-01-050-FSS.
Submitted: June 2, 2000.
Decided: August 18, 2000.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint — GRANTED, in part
ORDER
This is a medical malpractice case. The issue presented concerns relation back. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in three, significant ways. First, the motion seeks to broaden the Plaintiffs from the decedent's administrator "and his next of kin" to include, by name, decedent's next of kin. Second, the motion seeks to add a wrongful death claim and to expand the complaint's negligence claims. Finally, the amendment would add a claim for punitive damages. The Court now must apply Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a) and (c).
According to the original complaint, Defendants' negligence proximately caused a fatal hemorrhage in decedent's upper gastro intestinal area. The Defendant nursing home "failed to adequately inform defendant doctor of [decedent's] sympomology [sic] and failed to provide adequate medical aid or assistance to . . . decedent." The complaint alleges that the Defendant doctor failed to notify the Defendant nursing home that medications ordered by the doctor could cause hemorrhage and death to decedent. Further, the original complaint alleges that Defendant doctor failed to monitor decedent's condition and "upon notification [of] decedent's condition, Defendant doctor failed to act in a reasonable prudent manner acceptable to the standards of the medical community." Finally, the original complaint alleges that the Defendant doctor failed to notify the nursing home that decedent's pre-existing Parkinson's disease could cause hemorrhage to decedent.
Decedent died on January 12, 1998. The original complaint was filed on January 7, 2000, shortly before the statute of limitations ran. After the complaint was filed, the original Plaintiff obtained new counsel. Plaintiffs original counsel withdrew due to a conflict of interest. The pending Motion to Amend Complaint was filed on March 13, 2000, the day after new counsel agreed to appear for Plaintiff.
The Court is satisfied that amending the original complaint and its caption to allow Anthony H. Hunt to proceed individually and as the administrator of the estate and to name Randall and Arnold Hunt as plaintiffs is appropriate. The Court understands that Anthony, Randall and Arnold are decedent's next of kin. By allowing the proposed amendment in its entirety, Defendants will have to defend not only the original claim by the decedent's estate, Defendants will face a wrongful death claim under 10 Del. C. § 3724 and perhaps, a punitive damages claim.
Where Plaintiff seeks to amend and relate back, the Court first looks to Rule 15(c). If the proposed amendment clears the Rule 15(c) threshold, the Court then turns to Rule 15(a). Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c) provides:
An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . (2) the claim . . . arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. . . .
According to Wright, Miller Kane:
As is true in a number of other contexts . . . the search under Rule 15(c) is for a common core of operative facts in the two pleadings. . . .
Because the rationale of the relation back rule is to ameliorate the effect of the statute of limitations, rather than to promote the joinder of claims and parties, the standard for determining whether amendments qualify under Rule 15(c) is not simply an identity of transaction test; although not expressly mentioned in the rule, the courts also inquire into whether the opposing party has been put on notice regarding the claim . . . raised in the amended pleading.
Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure. Civil 2d § 1497.
The common facts and the notice concept are not distinct, however. They are interdependent. Although not on point, Mullen v. Alarmguard of Delmarva blends Rule 15 (c)'s common facts and notice requirements. While specifically addressing the addition of a party, Mullen generally explains:
R. Mullen, D.M.D. v. Alarm guard of Delmarva, Inc., Del. Supr., 625 A.2d 258, (1993).
The cause of action concept embodied in Rule 15 (c) has been broadly defined to require simply that there be fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim arose. . . . Thus, the mere fact that the amendment changes the legal theory on which the action was originally brought is of no consequence if the factual situation upon which the action depends remains the same. (Citations omitted).
Id. at 264.
The wrongful death claim and the expanded negligence claims arose directly out of the conduct alleged in the original complaint. Moreover, Defendants were on notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim arose. Before and after amendment, the complaint concerns the medical treatment and nursing care that the decedent received in the period leading to decedent's death. While the amended complaint raises a new and distinct theory of liability, wrongful death, it involves the originally pleaded conduct and a common core of operative facts.
Defendants place too much reliance on Seth v. Spruenken. That case reaches the result advocated by Defendants: rejection of a relation back for a death claim. Otherwise, Seth v. Spruenken' s circumstances dramatically distinguishable. Mary Seth fell on a fire escape. She and her husband sued their landlord for negligence. When she fell, Mrs. Seth was pregnant. Her fall allegedly caused her fetus to be delivered stillborn. As would be expected, the Seths originally sought damages for Mrs. Seth's injuries and her husband's loss of consortium. Surprisingly, after the statute of limitations ran, the Seths attempted to add a wrongful death claim for their unborn child. Such a claim was barely recognized under Delaware law at that time.
Seth v. Spruenken, Del. Super., 328 A.2d 143 (1974).
Id. at 145, 146.
In contrast to Seth v. Spruenken, and its novel wrongful death claim, this case involves a claim that should have been expected in the first place. As opposed to adding a wrongful death of an unborn child claim to plaintiffs' own personal injury claim, the original complaint in this case directly arises out of the death of a nursing home patient who had "next of kin." The original and the amended complaint both seek damages caused by the death. The Court suspects that Defendants were not surprised by the new wrongful death claim. It is more likely that they wondered why it was not filed originally.
Defendants also place too much emphasis on the fact that the wrongful death claim is a new and separate cause of action. As just discussed, relation back under Rule 15(c) does not prohibit relation back for every new and separate claim. Moreover, relation back does not turn, as Defendants imply, on whether Plaintiff's counsel "was aware of the claims raised in the proposed amendment." As presented above, relation back plainly turns on whether "the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading." Rule 15(c) is not concerned about the knowledge or state of mind of Plaintiff's counsel.
Having determined that relation back is permitted under Rule 15 (c), the Court turns to the interests of justice requirement under Rule 15(a). In that regard, the Court finds that justice requires that the proposed amendment be allowed. The Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed two months after the original complaint and less than two months after the statute of limitations had run. The original complaint appears to have been filed hurriedly by an attorney who withdrew from the case due to a last-minute conflict of interest. The amended complaint should be heard.
Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a) provides that:
"leave [to amend] shall freely be given when justice so requires."
Finally, in conclusory fashion, the amended complaint seeks to add a punitive damages claim. Regardless of whether that claim satisfies Rule 15(c), the Court finds that justice does not require that Plaintiff be allowed to add such a claim after the statute of limitations has run. they treated the decedent. Defendants will have to answer for the way To the extent that Plaintiffs have sustained compensable damages as a result of that treatment, they are entitled to compensation. Justice does not require that Plaintiffs receive damages as punishment to Defendants. In another case, perhaps, a punitive damages claim might relate back. Under the facts alleged in the amended complaint, however, the Court will not permit Plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages at this late date. If Plaintiffs uncover evidence that actually reveals willful and wanton misconduct, they have leave to renew their motion. They should understand, however, that if they persist and they fail, the Court will not hesitate to award sanctions. Plaintiffs are on notice to think twice before renewing their claim for punitive damages. The Court expects everyone to keep this unfortunate situation in perspective.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, except that the amended complaint's punitive damages claim, paragraph 18, is stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.