Moore v. Baker

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


  • ¶ 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.


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


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.


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


* 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.