- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
Amending Complaint: Patterson v. Markmann
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog discusses legal issues in Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I discuss the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint in Patterson v. Markmann, RDB 22-3183 (Feb. 16, 2024), a case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Factual Background
Following plastic surgery, the plaintiff developed bilateral compartment syndrome in his legs. Subsequently, he underwent 16 surgeries and incurred over $4 million in medical bills. (M.O. at 2).
Afterward, on December 9, 2022, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against numerous parties, including Dr. Markmann and Northwest Hospital. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend his complaint to allege that the doctor was the hospital’s ostensible/apparent agent. (Id. at 1).
In the initial discovery, the hospital produced a document stating that the doctor was the supervisor for the physician assistants providing care to his patients. However, this disclosure was made several months after the deadline for joining new parties or amending pleadings. The plaintiff then filed the motion to amend his complaint five days after the disclosure. (Id.).
US District Court
The court noted that the standard for allowing a motion to amend complaint beyond the deadline in the scheduling order is good cause under F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists if a party cannot reasonably meet deadlines despite the party’s diligence. (Id. at 3). The court is to consider whether the moving party acted in good faith, the length of the delay and its effects, and whether the delay will prejudice the non-moving party. (Id. at 4).
If the court is satisfied that good cause exists, it applies the Rule 15(a) standard, which directs the court to give leave when justice so requires freely. (Id.)
Ruling on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
The court found good cause for amending the complaint. The information for the amendment came from the opposing party’s discovery responses, and the plaintiff received it after the amendment deadline. (Id.). Moreover, the plaintiff filed the motion five days after learning the information. There was no lack of diligence. The court’s decision reflects its commitment to fairness and justice.
The court also found that the motion meets the Rule 15(a) liberal amendment standard. The hospital argued that the amendment was unfairly prejudicial. The defense argued that the parties had completed depositions, and consequently, the defense could not now ask questions about the new apparent agency assertion. (Id. at 5-6).
The court noted that the defense could seek to reopen the depositions. Discovery is ongoing, and the court has set no trial date. The court concluded that the nature of the litigation has remained the same. (Id.).
The hospital also argued that amending the complaint would be futile. Amendments are futile only when they are insufficient or frivolous on their face. (Id. at 6). The hospital was trying to prove it would win on the issue rather than showing that the amendment was frivolous, and the court rejected its argument. (Id.). The court allowed the amendment. (Id. at 7).
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on Motion for Leave for Amending Complaint
The plaintiff certainly deserved leave for amending the complaint in this case. The court could reopen depositions to explore the apparent agency issue, and there would be no substantial delay in the litigation.
One of the most important factors was that the plaintiff acted quickly to amend once he learned of the new information. Specifically, the plaintiff filed his motion in just five days, demonstrating his diligence and commitment to the case.
In many court opinions, the situation is the opposite. They often involve a party that missed one or more deadlines and has no justification for doing so.
When a party shows the court that they are on top of the litigation and diligently pursuing it, they place themselves in the best possible position for relief from the court.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.