Roth v. Mercy Health Center, Inc., 2011 OK 2

Roth, as personal representative of Geneva Roth’s estate, sues Mercy Health Center and Dr. Dixson for medical negligence and wrongful death; cardiologists Drs. Scott and Nadeau later become potential defendants; decedent treated at Mercy after a fall (Jan 2003) and died Apr. 11, 2003; Amiodarone dosing and related care cited as central alleged breach; the two-year limitations period began with decedent’s death (2003) and suit filed Jan. 12, 2005; probate appointment of Roth as special administrator/representative occurred March 1, 2005; initial petition misidentified party status, prompting multiple amendments and substitutions; trial court denied amendments, Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and Supreme Court reversal remands for proper substitution and amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of first amended petition was an abuse of discretion	Roth was the real party in interest; substitution should be treated liberally	Plaintiff lacked proper party status at filing; amendments should wait for substitution	Yes, abuse of discretion; substitution of real party in interest permitted; amendment allowed
Whether amendment relates back under 2015(C)	Cardiologists’ identities/facts later discovered; relation back should apply	Need timely notice to defendants that would have been named; knowledge focus incorrect	Yes, relation back permitted under 2015(C) as Krupski governs a party’s knowledge for amendment
Whether ostensible agency supports Mercy’s partial summary judgment	Mercy liable for acts of Scott and Nadeau as ostensible agents	Ostensible agency issue fact-intensive; no summary judgment at this stage	Summary judgment inappropriate; material facts remain for jury
Whether substitution should have occurred before amending pleadings	Procedural form should not bar real-party substitution given actual status	Substitution must occur before addressing amendments; not a mere formality	Abused discretion; substitution can occur to preserve substantive rights

Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 895 P.2d 731 (1994 OK CIV APP 171) (substitution allowed under wrongful death statutes; liberal amendment)
Krupski v. Costa Crociere, 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010 U.S.) (relation back depends on defendant’s knowledge, not plaintiff’s timeliness; Krupski governs)
Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 123 P.3d 11 (2005 OK 74) (liberal substitution of real party in interest; amendments before judgment)
Calvert v. Tulsa Pub. Schs., 932 P.2d 1087 (1996 OK 106) (defining personal representative for related actions)
Owens v. Taylor, 213 P.3d 300 (1923 OK 103) (historic permissive amendments where substantive rights preserved)