Chalick v. Cooper Hospital, Et Al

192 F.R.D. 145 (D N.J. 2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Chalick (P) sued for medical malpractice on about March 9, 1999, under diversity jurisdiction (28 USC 1332). P named a number of defendants, and John Does 1-50 and Jane Does 1-50. The Does were clearly identified with a laundry list of parties that might have been involved. P alleged that Ds were responsible for the death of P's decedent, Michael Ellis Chalick. On June 2, 1999, the hospital Ds served P with their Rule 26(a) disclosures. With respect to persons with relevant knowledge, defendants identified the four individual physician defendants, along with five other physicians or nurses, including Dr. Richard Burns. On or about June 14, 1999, the Radiology Ds served plaintiff's counsel with their Rule 26(a) disclosures, also identifying Dr. Richard Burns as an individual with relevant knowledge. Both Ds failed to provide the information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A), other than Dr. Burns' name. Burns’ name came up under a number of interrogatories. It was not until the deposition of Defendant Dr. Salem on December 10, 1999, that plaintiff claims he first became aware that he had a claim against Dr. Burns. As a result of this testimony, on or about December 27, 1999, P filed this motion to amend the amended complaint to add Richard Burns, M.D., as a defendant, conceding that the statute of limitations ran on plaintiff's claim against Dr. Burns, but claiming that the amendment relates back to the filing of the original Complaint under FRCP. 15(c). D argues that Dr. Burns did not receive actual or constructive notice of this lawsuit, and did not have reason to know that plaintiff intended to sue him until he received plaintiff's motion to amend.