Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Moore v. Baker

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRelation BackAmended PleadingsSummary JudgmentInformed ConsentFRCP 15(a)FRCP 15(c)relation back

Facts

Moore consulted Dr. Baker for blockage of her left carotid artery, and he recommended a carotid endarterectomy. Baker discussed the risks of surgery but did not tell Moore about EDTA therapy, and Moore consented to the operation. After surgery, Moore developed a clot, underwent reopening of the wound and clot removal, and suffered permanent brain damage. She originally sued only on an informed consent theory, then after the limitations period sought to add negligence claims concerning Baker's conduct during and after surgery.

Issue

Did Moore's post-limitations amendment adding negligence claims relate back to her original informed consent complaint under Rule 15(c)? Did the district court properly grant summary judgment on her informed consent claim on the ground that EDTA therapy was not a generally recognized and accepted alternative treatment under Georgia law?

Rule

Leave to amend may be denied as futile when the proposed claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Under Rule 15(c), an amendment relates back only when the new claim arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, and the critical question is whether the original complaint gave the defendant notice of the claim later asserted. When new or distinct conduct, transactions, or occurrences are alleged as grounds for recovery, there is no relation back. Under O.C.G.A. § 31-9-6.1(a)(5), a physician must disclose only practical alternatives to surgery that are generally recognized and accepted by reasonably prudent physicians.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On the last day of the limitations period, Elena Park sued Dr. Nolan Greer and Lakeview Surgical Group in federal court in Atlanta, alleging only that Greer failed to tell her about a nonoperative therapy before recommending shoulder surgery. Four months later, after limitations expired, she moved to amend to allege that Greer carelessly severed a nerve during the operation.

Should the court treat the amended complaint as relating back to the original filing date?

Explanation. Rule 15(c) turns on whether the original pleading gave notice of the later-asserted claim. A complaint focused only on failure to disclose an alternative before surgery does not put the defendant on notice of a claim that the surgery itself was negligently performed. Because the alleged negligent severing of the nerve occurred at a different time and involves separate and distinct conduct requiring different proof, the amendment does not relate back.