Ex parte Air Evac EMS, Inc., [Ms. SC-2024-0732, Mar. 21, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Cook, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell, and McCool, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Dallas Circuit Court to grant Air Evac EMS, Inc’s motion for summary judgment as to new claims added in an Amended Complaint.
The Joneses filed suit on August 24, 2020 against Air Evac and a flight nurse concerning alleged injuries sustained during a medical helicopter transport on August 27, 2018. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs amended their complaint and alleged that on August 26, the day before the Joneses’ flight, the defendant flight nurse stole pain medication from the helicopter and put saline solution in its place. Ms. *2. The amended complaint also included new allegations against two other flight nurses for improper medical treatment. Ms. **6-7.
Air Evac moved for summary judgment arguing that the Joneses’ new claims in the amended complaint were barred by AMLA’s two-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose. Ms. *13. In addition, Air Evac argued that the amended complaint did not relate back to the initial complaint under Ala. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) because it included new allegations that did not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth – or attempted to be set forth – in the initial Complaint. Id.
“It is undisputed that the Joneses’ amended complaint was not filed within four years of the complained-of acts.” Ms. *14. Therefore, the Court focuses on whether the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c)(2). The Court notes that, “[e]ven if otherwise barred by the applicable statute of limitations, an amendment to a complaint may be allowed if it ‘arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading ….’ Rule 15(c)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P.” Ms. *14, citing Prior v. Cancer Surgery of Mobile, P.C., 959 So. 2d 1092, 1095 (Ala. 2006).
In its analysis, the Court extensively cites its Ex parte Affinity Hosp., 373 So. 3d 180 (Ala. 2022) ruling, noting that: “whether an amended complaint will relate back to an original complaint focuses on whether the amended complaint consists of a refinement of the original allegations, and therefore is permissible under Rule 15(c)(2), or addresses different conduct, transactions, or occurrences than originally pleaded, and therefore will not relate back.” Ms. *17. The applicable test is “whether the proposed amendment is a different matter, another subject of controversy, or the same matter more fully or differently laid to meet the possible scope of the testimony.” Ibid., (internal citation and emphasis omitted).
Applying that test, the Court determines that the Joneses’ amended complaint “alleged entirely new facts that occurred on a different day and by different individuals” than set forth in the initial complaint. Ms. *18. Therefore, the Court finds that the amended complaint cannot relate back to the initial complaint and directs the Dallas Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Air Evac’s motion for a summary judgment as to the Amended Complaint. Ms. *21 (internal citation omitted).