Farmer v. BROSCH, 8 A.3d 1139

Farmer suffered vaginal/genital lacerations during childbirth at Christiana Hospital on July 28, 2007.
Farmers sued Dr. Brosch and Christiana; sent Notices of Intent under 18 Del. C. § 6856(4) seven days before the two-year limit.
Notices tolled the statute for up to 90 days; complaint filed October 14, 2009, attaching certified mail receipts but not the Notices.
Superior Court dismissed for failure to attach Notices; denied motion to amend to add the Notices; found no valid tolling.
Delaware Supreme Court held attachment not a prerequisite to tolling; failure to attach may be cured by amendment and relation back.
Case reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion; Farmers effectively tolled the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does failure to attach Notices bar tolling?	Farmer argues tolling occurred by sending Notices, attachment not required.	Defendants contend attachment is required to prove tolling under § 6856(4).	Attachment not required; tolling valid if Notices sent.
Is the 90-day extension automatic upon timely Notices?	Notices timely extended the period by 90 days; filing within extension preserves claims.	Extension conditioned on strict procedural attachment to complaint.	90-day toll extends, documentation confirms compliance; not defeated by non-attachment.
May an amended pleading relate back to trigger tolling?	Relief by amendment would cure the filing defect and relate back to original filing.	Relation back not appropriate if no valid filing existed to which to relate.	Relation back available; trial court should consider amendment.

Leatherbury v. Greenspun, 939 A.2d 1284 (Del. 2007) (strict compliance with § 6856(4) required; delivery method matters)
Christiana Hosp. v. Fattori, 714 A.2d 754 (Del. 1998) (strict construction of statutes of limitation governs)