Iris M. Wilner v. M. Neil White, M.D., and Gulf Coast OB/GYN, P.A.

929 So. 2d 315 (Miss. 2006) · Supreme Court of Mississippi · July 16, 2003 · No. No. 2003-CT-01733-SCT

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that an amended medical-malpractice complaint adding defendants after expiration of the statute of limitations could not be treated as an original complaint or relate back to the original complaint. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not obtained the required leave to amend and had not shown a qualifying mistake concerning the defendants’ identities under Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c) and 9(h). The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment for the defendants.

Holdings

  1. An amended complaint filed in an existing action cannot be treated as an original complaint merely because it was filed before the statute of limitations expired, particularly when the original complaint remained viable and leave of court or written consent was required.
  2. The amended complaint adding White and Gulf Coast OB/GYN did not relate back to the original complaint because Wilner did not satisfy the requirement that the addition result from a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.
  3. Rule 9(h) did not permit relation back because Wilner added White and Gulf Coast OB/GYN rather than substituting their true names for fictitious defendants, and she was not ignorant of White's identity in the manner contemplated by the rule.
  4. Summary judgment for White and Gulf Coast OB/GYN was proper because the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations expired, did not relate back, and therefore was time-barred.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an amended complaint filed after the statute of limitations may be treated as an original complaint when the motion to amend was filed before the limitations period expired.
  2. Whether the amended complaint adding Dr. White and Gulf Coast OB/GYN could relate back to the original complaint under Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c) or 9(h).
  3. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment because the claims against the newly added defendants were time-barred.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Wilner v. White, 788 So. 2d 822 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)(prior procedural history)
  • Curry v. Turner, 832 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2002)(followed)
  • King v. American RV Centers, Inc., 862 So. 2d 558 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)(overruled)
  • Kimball v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 94 Miss. 396, 48 So. 230 (1909)(followed)
  • Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So. 2d 224, 234 (Miss. 2005)(followed)
  • Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So. 2d 909, 910 (Miss. 1992)(followed)
  • Doe v. Mississippi Blood Services, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1016, 1018-19 (Miss. 1997)(followed)
  • Womble v. Singing River Hospital, 618 So. 2d 1252, 1266-68 (Miss. 1993)(followed)
  • Nguyen v. Mississippi Valley Gas Co., 859 So. 2d 971, 978-79 (Miss. 2003)(followed)
  • Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 467 & n.1 (2000)(followed by analogy)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Mississippi Supreme Court