Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation

159 F.R.D. 16 (W.D.N.Y. 1994)

What's Going On?

Plaintiff (patient) moves to amend a complaint alleging negligent maintenance of premises to additionally allege negligent professional malpractice, in a case in which Plaintiff was injured while participating in Defendant's (rehabilitation facility) mandatory exercise program.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

[John] Bonerb – New York resident, injured while a rehabilitation patient at Defendant's facility.

Defendant :

Richard J. Caron Foundation – not-for-profit Pennsylvania corporation licensed and doing business as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility.

Facts:

Plaintiff John Bonerb, a patient at Defendant Richard J. Caron Foundation's drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, was injured during a basketball game while participating in Defendant's mandatory exercise program. Plaintiff brought a federal diversity action, claiming that Defendant negligently maintained the basketball court. Plaintiff successfully moved to substitute new counsel. Plaintiff then moved to amend his complaint to add a cause of action for professional malpractice in rehabilitation counseling; however, the period in which the pleading could be amended as of right had expired. Defendant objects to the amendment, arguing that the new claim is barred by Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations and that the new claim does not relate back.

Issue:

May an otherwise time-barred claim based on negligent professional malpractice relate back to an original claim based on negligent maintenance of premises?

Decision:

Yes. Under FRCP 15(a), a party may request leave of court to amend a pleading, even after the time for amending a pleading as of right has expired. Leave to amend should be “freely given” absent undue prejudice to the party opposing the amendment, undue delay on the part of the party seeking the amendment, or bad faith. An amendment that seeks to add a time-barred claim should not be allowed unless the claim relates back to the date of the original pleading. Relation back is only proper if the operational facts set forth in the original complaint alerted the defendant to the possibility of the claim that the party seeking the amendment later attempts to add. In this case, the original complaint alleged that Defendant's basketball court was negligently maintained, and that Defendant engaged in negligent conduct. The proposed amendment alleges that Plaintiff was caused to fall while participating in Defendant's exercise program, and that the rehabilitation and counseling care rendered was negligently performed. The allegations in the original and amended complaints derive from the same nucleus of operative facts involving Plaintiff's injury. Because the original complaint advised Defendant of the same occurrence giving rise to the different theories of negligence, and there has been no showing of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice, the requirements for relation back under Rule 15(c) have been met.

Basic Rule:

Relation back is only proper if the operational facts set forth in the original complaint alerted the defendant to the possibility of the claim that the party seeking the amendment later attempts to add.

Terms:

Relation back :

Principle holding that an act which took place at a certain time may be deemed by law to have taken place at an earlier time.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us