Moore v. Baker

989 F.2d 1129 (11th Cir. 1993)

Facts:

  • ¶ had a blocked artery and consulted r. r suggested surgery and warned ¶ of the possible risks involved.
  • The operation went badly and ¶ was permanently disabled.

Procedural History:

  • Initial complaint charged r with breaching duty of informed consent because he did not tell ¶ of possible alternatives.
  • r filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • ¶ moved to amend to assert allegations of negligence. Court rules that the statute of limitations to amend has run out.

Motion to amend denied.

Issue:

Whether, in accordance to Rule 15, the original complaint gave notice to r about the amendment sought.

Holding:

The original complaint gave NO notice to r about the amendment sought because the amendment (negligence during and after the operation) did not relate back to the action (pre-op information) in the complaint.

Rule:

If the statute of limitations to amend a claim has run, under Rule 15, the claim can be amended only if it relates back to the actions set forth in the original pleading and puts the r on notice.

Rule(s) of Law:

Rule 15

Reasoning:

* Negligence would need a different set of facts than the current claim for breach of duty of informed consent.

Court’s Order:

Motion to amend denied.