Patton ex rel. Alexia L. v. Miller
420 S.C. 471
| S.C. | 2017Background
- Alexia L., born 2007, suffered brachial plexus injury at birth; her mother Angela Patton sued defendants for medical malpractice on Alexia’s behalf as "next friend."
- Patton filed separate suits (2009 v. Dr. Miller/Rock Hill; 2012 v. Amisub/Piedmont) later consolidated; complaints sought Alexia’s past and future medical expenses, but Patton sued only in representative capacity.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing only a parent (not the minor) may recover a minor’s medical expenses — the circuit court granted partial SJ, dismissing Alexia’s claims for medical expenses during minority.
- Patton moved to alter judgment and to amend her complaint to assert the medical-expense claims in her individual capacity and to have that amendment relate back; the motions were denied; the court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed as to Dr. Miller and Rock Hill (affirming dismissal as to Amisub), holding the court misapplied Rule 56 instead of resolving real-party-in-interest disputes under Rules 17 and 15, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a minor (through next friend) recover her own medical expenses? | Patton: Minor’s representative may recover future and lifetime medical expenses; no categorical bar. | Defendants: Only a parent (who is legally obligated to pay) is the real party in interest for medical expenses. | Court: No categorical bar; minor (or her representative/conservator) can be real party in interest depending on who has legal obligation to pay and subrogation by payors. |
| Was summary judgment proper to decide the real-party-in-interest question? | Patton: The court should not have granted SJ; Rule 17 provides mechanisms (ratification, joinder, substitution) to avoid forfeiture. | Defendants: SJ appropriate because pre-Rules precedent bars minor recovery. | Court: SJ was improper; Rule 17(a) requires allowing reasonable opportunity for ratification/joinder/substitution before dismissal. |
| Could Patton amend to sue in her individual capacity and have amendment relate back? | Patton: Rule 15(a) favors amendments; Rule 15(c) permits relation back because the claim is the same (only capacity changed). | Defendants: Amendment would add a new plaintiff/capacity after limitations expired; prejudice and Rule 15 limits. | Court: Denial of leave to amend was error. Amendment should have been allowed as to claims against Dr. Miller and Rock Hill and relates back to 2009; Amisub claims differ and remain barred. |
| Effect of third-party payors (Medicaid/insurer) on who is real party in interest? | Patton: If Medicaid/insurer paid bills, representative has duty to reimburse and thus may be real party in interest. | Defendants: Traditional cases where parent paid control; subrogation not addressed in older cases. | Court: Existence of subrogation (Medicaid/insurer) complicates the inquiry; it can make the representative/conservator the real party in interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 154 S.E.2d 839 (S.C. 1967) (parent’s obligation to pay makes parent real party in interest for child’s medical bills)
- Tucker v. Buffalo Cotton Mills, 76 S.C. 539, 57 S.E. 626 (S.C. 1907) (father as guardian could not recover child’s medical bills when parent personally liable)
- Johnston v. Bagger, 151 S.C. 537, 149 S.E. 241 (S.C. 1929) (permits minor’s recovery through guardian ad litem under particular facts)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 746 S.E.2d 478 (Ct. App. 2013) (definition and application of "real party in interest")
- Thomas v. Grayson, 318 S.C. 82, 456 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 1995) (amendment changing plaintiff’s capacity may relate back under Rules 15(c) and 17(a))
- Twelfth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Nat’l Safe Corp., 335 S.C. 635, 518 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1999) (distinguishes adding new plaintiff/claim from substituting capacity; supports relation-back where same claim arises from same transaction)