Ex Parte Mobile Infirmary Association, 1091490 (Ala. 6-24-2011)
74 So. 3d 424
| Ala. | 2011Background
- Mary H. Shaw died March 23, 2008 after treatment at Mobile Infirmary and related facilities.
- Shaw, as administrator, filed a wrongful-death action December 10, 2009 against IHS and fictitiously named defendants.
- Medical records labeled as 'Mobile Infirmary Medical Center' were in Shaw's and his counsel's possession for months prior to filing.
- April 2, 2010 IHS identified Mobile Infirmary as the proper entity; Shaw attempted to amend April 12, 2010 to substitute Mobile Infirmary.
- The two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations expired March 23, 2010, before the amendment or discovery.
- Mobile Infirmary moved to dismiss; the trial court treated it as summary judgment and denied; mandamus sought to direct dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment relates back under Rule 9(h)/15(c). | Shaw argues relation back should apply if due diligence identified the defendant. | Mobile Infirmary asserts no relation back because due diligence was lacking. | Amendment did not relate back; action barred by the statute. |
| Was there due diligence to identify Mobile Infirmary as the fictitious party? | Shaw relied on discovery and records labeling, which allegedly showed Mobile Infirmary as the entity. | Shaw failed to act with reasonable diligence to identify the correct entity. | Shaw failed due diligence; relation back not permitted. |
| Does prejudice to Mobile Infirmary affect relation-back analysis? | Delay caused no prejudice due to notice through IHS's counsel. | Prejudice is not dispositive where due diligence is lacking. | Prejudice consideration does not cure lack of due diligence; relation back denied. |
| Should the court grant mandamus to dismiss the action? | If relation back applied, case should proceed; otherwise dismissal would be improper. | Dismissal is proper because the claim is time-barred and not saved by relation back. | Writ granted; dismissal of Shaw's wrongful-death claim against Mobile Infirmary affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1999) (relation back in fictitious-party cases requires due diligence)
- Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681 (Ala. 2000) (review of merits in mandamus context when appropriate)
- Oliver v. Woodward, 824 So.2d 693 (Ala. 2001) (diligent identification of responsible party can sustain relation back)
- Fulmer v. Clark Equip. Co., 654 So.2d 45 (Ala. 1995) (know identity or possess sufficient facts; delay not tolled without diligence)
- Kinard v. C.A. Kelly & Co., 468 So.2d 133 (Ala. 1985) (due diligence required in identifying fictitious party)
- Davis v. Mims, 510 So.2d 227 (Ala. 1987) (ignorance of fictitious party identity insufficient to toll limitations)
- Crowl v. Kayo Oil Co., 848 So.2d 930 (Ala. 2002) (discovery alone may be insufficient to show due diligence)