Showing posts with label Motion to Amend. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motion to Amend. Show all posts

Friday, March 4, 2011

Court Reviews the Denial of a Motion to Amend a Complaint in an Automobile Accident Case

LAMAR REYNOLDS v. LOUIS R. TOGNETTI and WENDEE L. TOGNETTI (Tenn. Ct. App. March 4, 2011)

Before filing this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although the plaintiff's personal injury action accrued prior to his filing for bankruptcy, he omitted the potential claim from a schedule of assets in the bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff received a discharge in bankruptcy, and, shortly thereafter, filed the instant action.

After the defendants moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint in order to add the bankruptcy Trustee as a party. The trial court did not rule on the plaintiff's motion to amend, and instead granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing and was judicially estopped from pursuing his personal injury claim. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred when it failed to rule on the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint prior to adjudicating the defendants' summary judgment motion.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/reynoldsl_030411.pdf

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Court Reviews a Finding Against Plaintiff in a Medical Malpractice Case

JAMIE RANDOLPH, on behalf of her deceased mother, CAROLYN RANDOLPH v. GIANFRANCO MEDURI, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 2, 2011)

This appeal arises out of an action to hold UT Medical Group, Inc. vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its employees. In 1997, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint for medical malpractice and wrongful death which specifically named two doctors as employees of the defendant who negligently caused the death of a patient. As trial approached, a substitute plaintiff attempted to add new allegations concerning the negligence of a third doctor. The trial court denied the motion to amend and later granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning the alleged negligence of the third doctor as beyond the scope of the 1997 amended complaint. The plaintiff consequently was unable to offer expert testimony at trial to prove an employee of the defendant negligently caused the patient's death, and the trial court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/randolphj_030211.pdf