SHERRY CLEMENS v. PETER NAMNUM, M.D.
16-3558
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Sherry Clemens (as personal representative) sued FHMS and Dr. Namnum for medical malpractice after her husband died, alleging FHMS was liable both directly (negligent selection/retention) and vicariously (agency/respondeat superior).
- Two years after filing, Clemens amended to expressly allege negligent credentialing/selection against FHMS; FHMS moved to dismiss arguing the new theory was time-barred and did not relate back to earlier pleadings; the trial court denied dismissal.
- FHMS served requests for admission asking Clemens to admit she was not pursuing an agency/vicarious-liability claim; Clemens (through original counsel) admitted she was not pursuing an agency claim.
- Clemens obtained new counsel who promptly sought leave to amend/withdraw the admission to reflect that an agency/vicarious-liability theory was asserted; FHMS opposed, arguing prejudice and estoppel; trial court denied the motion and struck the agency paragraph from the complaint.
- More than three years later, FHMS moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim; Clemens conceded direct liability but argued FHMS remained vicariously liable and that the denial to amend admissions and striking of the agency allegation was error; the trial court entered final summary judgment for FHMS.
- The Fourth District reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend admissions and by striking the agency allegation, because amendment would not have prejudiced FHMS and Clemens was not estopped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw/amend admissions under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(b) | Clemens argued amendment should be allowed because the admission was a mistaken position of prior counsel, discovery was ongoing, trial not set, and she offered to permit additional discovery/re-depositions, so no prejudice to FHMS | FHMS argued it relied on the admissions in litigation strategy and permitting amendment would unfairly prejudice its ability to maintain defenses | Court held amendment should have been allowed: no undue prejudice shown and Rule 1.370 favors deciding cases on the merits (abuse of discretion to deny) |
| Whether Clemens is estopped from taking a contrary litigation position after earlier admissions/representations | Clemens argued she did not gain any advantage from prior counsel’s representations and ultimately conceded direct liability; she therefore should not be estopped | FHMS argued Clemens successfully asserted the contrary position and should be estopped from reversing course | Court held no estoppel: key element (successful assertion/benefit) was absent, so estoppel did not bar amendment |
| Whether striking the agency paragraph and entering summary judgment was proper after plaintiff conceded direct liability | Clemens argued the agency allegation was wrongly stricken and summary judgment improperly entered based on that ruling and the unamended admissions | FHMS argued no record evidence supported direct liability and the admissions foreclosed vicarious liability, justifying summary judgment | Court reversed summary judgment and the order striking the agency paragraph, directing trial court to permit amendment of admissions and reinstate agency theory |
| Whether prejudice to defendant justified denying amendment when discovery and pleadings were still open | Clemens argued prejudice would be minimal because discovery was ongoing and she offered additional discovery accommodations | FHMS argued litigation had progressed and it relied on prior admissions in preparing defenses | Court found timing and offered accommodations meant FHMS could not establish undue prejudice; amendment should have been allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chelminsky v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 184 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (standard of review for Rule 1.370 withdrawal/amendment rulings)
- Istache v. Pierre, 876 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (Rule 1.370 favors amendments to decide cases on merits; clerical errors justify amendment)
- Thomas v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 875 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (permitting correction of mistaken admissions under Rule 1.370)
- Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (attorney corrections of prior counsel’s legal errors are permitted to promote merits resolution)
- Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Mkt. Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (amendments before pleadings closed and trial set typically not prejudicial)
- McPhee v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (estoppel requires that the party previously succeeded in maintaining the earlier position)