Francese v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp.
Docket: 4-86-0634
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 31, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
Gigi Gil Franceses appealed a final summary judgment that dismissed her medical malpractice claim against Tamarac Hospital Corporation, asserting it was barred by the statute of limitations. The central issue was whether her amended complaint related back to the original complaint's filing date. The trial court ruled it did not, but the appellate court disagreed and reversed the decision. Franceses initially filed a complaint against "University Community Hospital" but mistakenly served a different entity in Tampa with a similar name. After realizing the error, she served the administrator of the Tamarac Hospital, yet again failed to name the correct corporate entity. Ultimately, in her fourth amended complaint, she properly named Tamarac Hospital Corporation as the defendant. However, by this time, more than two years had elapsed since the incident that prompted her claim. The appellee argued that the amendment introduced a new party rather than correcting a misnomer, which would prevent relation back. The appellate court clarified that while the general rule states an amendment correcting a misnomer can relate back, it does not apply when new parties are added. Citing prior case law, the court noted that Florida's legal standards allow for a more liberal interpretation regarding amendments post-statute of limitations. It concluded that Franceses' amendment merely rectified a misnomer, affirming that her amended pleading related back to the original filing date and thus fell within the statute of limitations. The court found appellee’s reliance on precedent inapplicable to the facts of this case. The North and South Broward Hospital Districts were incorrectly identified in separate summonses at different addresses. The trial court's summary judgment for South Broward Hospital District was upheld due to the action being initiated after the statute of limitations had expired. Unlike the case of Louis, where there was confusion over the defendant's identity, this case presented a clear identification of the defendant in the original complaint. The judgment was reversed and remanded. Relevant legal references include Section 95.11(4)(b) of the Florida Statutes regarding statutes of limitations, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 concerning the relation back of amendments to pleadings. Additionally, the original complaint clearly identified University Community Hospital as a Florida corporation conducting business at a specified address. The court deemed the appellant's second point on appeal unnecessary to address, as the statute of limitations issue was sufficient for the ruling.