State Ex Rel. Holzum v. Schneider
342 S.W.3d 313
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Alverna Katz dies from injuries after a fall in 2005; Eric Katz sues multiple defendants in 2008 for medical malpractice, naming Washington Univ. and others, plus John and Jane Doe.
- Original petition did not name Drs. Holzum, Landry, Poggemeier or BC Emergency Physicians LLP.
- Amended petition added Holzum, Landry, Poggemeier and BC Emergency Physicians, dropping John Doe, Jane Doe and Washington Univ./WUSM; Barnes-Jewish St. Peters remained.
- Limitation period was three years; amended petition filed after discovery and after expiration of the period for the named new defendants.
- Lower court allowed the amendment to proceed; new defendants sought writs of prohibition to bar the action as time-barred.
- Missouri Supreme Court consolidated the writs to decide whether the amendment relates back to the timely filing date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended petition relates back to the original filing under Rule 55.33(c) or misnomer doctrine. | Katz argues amendment relates back since claim arose from same conduct/occurrence. | Holzum et al. contend amendment fails Rule 55.33(c) requirements and misnomer does not apply to new defendants. | Amendment does not relate back; procedural notice and misnomer requirements unmet. |
| Whether notice and service requirements under Rule 55.33(c) were satisfied for the new defendants. | Notice should be feasible given relation back, given the original suit. | ||
| No prompt notice or adequate identification of new defendants in initial pleading; service not promptly effected. | Katz failed to provide timely notice or adequately describe the wrong party; Rule 55.33(c) not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. E.W. Bliss Co., 704 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. banc 1986) (misnomer vs. substitution; relates back with notice)
- Bailey v. Innovative Mgmt. & Inv. Inc., 890 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. banc 1994) (Rule 55.33(c) second requirement for new party)
- Windscheffel v. Benoit, 646 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. banc 1983) (mistake in naming requires relation back; misnomer vs substitution)
- Maddux v. Gardner, 192 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. App. 1945) (pre-Rule 55.33(c) interpretation; identity specificity matters)
- Hawkins v. Hawkins, 533 S.W.2d 634 (Mo. App. 1976) (early interpretation after Rule 55.33(c))
- Kennon v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co., 666 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. App. 1983) (prompt service requirement under Rule 54.01(c))
- State ex rel. Hilker v. Sweeney, 877 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. banc 1994) (writ of prohibition to prevent time-barred actions)