Ingraham v. United States

808 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1987)

Facts:

  • Consolidated cases in which government physicians severely and permanently injured several defendants.

Procedural History:

  • Cases brought separately; Ingraham for negligent use of a drill that injured his spinal chord, Bonds for mismanagement in late pregnancy and failure to perform a timely c-section.
  • Both ¶s won large money damages.
  • At no time during the pleadings or trial did the government mention the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas (MLIIAT)
  • Government moves to amend according to the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas

Government’s motions to amend denied.

Contentions of parties:

¶: The court should not consider the government’s motion to amend according to the MLIIAT because invoking the MLIIAT is an affirmative defense that was waived beause the government did not raise it in time.

Issue:

Whether a statutory limitation defense is an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in time under Rule 8(c).

Holding:

A statutory limitation defense is an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in time under Rule 8(c) because it is a defense that is likely to surprise the opposing party and should therefore not be allowed under the provisions of the Rule.

Rule:

A statutory limitation defense is an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in time under Rule 8(c) because it is a defense that is likely to surprise the opposing party and should therefore not be allowed under the provisions of the Rule.

Rule(s) of Law:

Rule 8(c)

Bull’s Corner Restaurant v. Director, FEMA: “where an [affirmative defense] is raised in the trial court in a manner that does not result in unfair surprise…technical failure to comply with Rule 8(c) is not fatal.”

Lucas v. United States:

Reasoning:

* Distinguished from Lucas in that the issue was raised in trial and the court decided that it would not be an unfair surprise to allow the amendment. This was not what happened in this case.

Court’s Order:

Government’s motions to amend denied.