Roth v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, INC.
2011 OK 2
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Roth, as personal representative of the estate, sued Mercy Health Center and Dr. Dixson for medical negligence and wrongful death arising from Decedent Geneva Roth's treatment and death in 2003.
- Decedent was treated for a fractured femur, developed arrhythmia, and died after discharge following Amiodarone-related care; cardiologists Scott and Nadeau were involved.
- Plaintiff sought to amend to add Scott and Nadeau as defendants; initial petition filed before proper appointment as personal representative.
- probate court appointed Plaintiff as Personal Representative in March 2005; defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff’s status.
- Plaintiff repeatedly moved to amend to substitute herself and to add cardiologists; the trial court initially denied amendments based on party status and statute of limitations concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the first amendment | Roth was the real party in interest; substitution should be allowed. | Plaintiff lacked proper party status at filing; amendment improper. | Yes; abuse of discretion; remanded for proper amendment analysis. |
| Whether relation-back under 2015(C) was misapplied | Cardiologists' identities should relate back; discovery discovery altered not prejudicial. | No relation-back due to lack of timely notice/identity. | Court reinterprets relation-back; 2015(C) requires focus on defendant's knowledge, Krupski applied. |
| Whether Mercy's ostensible agency summary judgment was proper | Ostensible agency should hold Mercy responsible for Scott/Nadeau's acts. | Summary judgment appropriate; factual issues predominate. | Material fact question remains; summary judgment inappropriate; remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 895 P.2d 731 (1994 OK CIV APP 171) (liberal substitution in wrongful death context; policy against multiplicity of suits)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (relation back depends on what added party knew or should have known; strict rule)
- Calvert v. Tulsa Pub. Schs., 932 P.2d 1087 (1996 OK 106) (imported probate statute definition of personal representative for GTCA context)
- Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 123 P.3d 11 (2005 OK 74) (liberal amendment practice; substitution of real party in interest)