Relation Back – Rule 15(c)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P.


Ex parte Affinity Hospital, LLC; Ex parte Wade, [Ms. 1210160; 1210191, May 27, 2022] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2022). The Court (Mendheim, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) issues writs of mandamus to the Jefferson Circuit Court directing the court to grant motions to dismiss of Affinity Hospital, LLC (“Affinity”), d/b/a Grandview Medical Center and Raymond Chad Wade, M.D. (“Dr. Wade”). The Court notes that “for Affinity and Dr. Wade to be entitled to the writs of mandamus they seek, it must be clear from the face of the restated complaint that [plaintiff’s] claims in that complaint against Affinity and Dr. Wade do not relate back to the original complaint and, therefore, that the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in § 6-5-410(d).” Ms.**13-14.

The Court first rejects the petitioners’ argument that the heightened pleading requirements in § 6-5-551 Ala. Code 1975 requires that the relation-back criteria of Rule 15(c)(2) be applied more restrictively in a medical negligence case. Ms. **16-19. However, the Court holds the claims time-barred because

In the original complaint, the lacerations that allegedly eventually led to Catherine’s condition occurred during the surgery on March 21, 2019. In the restated complaint, the fall that allegedly resulted in a perforated viscus occurred on March 24, 2019.... [The] restated complaint clearly addresses conduct distinct in kind and in time from the conduct alleged in [the] original complaint (and five subsequent amended complaints). Therefore, [the] restated complaint cannot relate back to [the] original complaint.

Ms. *29.

Related Documents