Dulin v. Northeast Alabama Regional Medical Center, 111 So. 3d 125

George Dulin was admitted to Northeast Alabama Regional Medical Center in May 2005 for crush injuries and required a tracheostomy.
On June 3, 2005, the tracheostomy tube allegedly dislodged during a bath, causing oxygen deprivation and brain damage.
Hospital records included an illegible flow sheet identifying several staff as RNs or RTs, with some names partially legible or misspelled (e.g., Watkins/Watson; Nail unreadable).
The Dulins later amended the complaint (Oct. 26, 2007) substituting Nail, Watson, and Farragher for fictitiously named defendants 6–11 based on discovery.
The Dulins’ claims against the nurses were filed within two years of the incident; nurses moved for summary judgment asserting the amended filing did not relate back under Rule 9(h) and § 6-5-482.
The trial court denied the motion; the nurses sought mandamus relief, which the court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the substitution of nurses names relates back under Rule 9(h) and 15(c) despite illegible records.	Dulins acted with due diligence, timely pursuing discovery and substitution.	Dulins had insufficient due diligence; records were unclear, and discovery did not yield clear identities.	Dulins showed due diligence; substitution related back; petition denied.

Ex parte Klemawesch, 549 So.2d 62 (Ala.1989) (limits on relation back when due diligence is lacking after expiration of limitations)
Ex parte Ismail, 78 So.3d 399 (Ala.2011) (identity and extent of involvement; not merely adding time beyond limitations)
Ex parte Mobile Infirmary, 74 So.3d 424 (Ala.2011) (distinguishes when legal entity identity is known but not properly named)
Ex parte Stover, 663 So.2d 948 (Ala.1995) (mandamus review of discovery and due diligence standards)
Ex parte FMC Corp., 599 So.2d 592 (Ala.1992) (requires undisputed evidence of lack of due diligence for mandamus relief)