JOHN O'BRIEN AND ESTHER O'BRIEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM J. YOUNG, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted against Dr. William J. Young, challenging the trial judge's refusal to allow amendment of their complaint to add a respondeat superior theory of liability. The court held that while the summary judgment was properly entered because Dr. Young did not personally treat the patient, the appellants should have been permitted to amend their complaint to assert the alternative theory of liability.
While the summary judgment against Dr. Young was properly entered because he did not personally treat the patient, the trial judge erred in refusing to consider the appellants' request to amend their complaint. The appellants should have been permitted to amend to develop a respondeat superior theory of liability based on allegations that treatment was provided under Dr. Young's direction and control.
[1] A trial court may properly grant summary judgment for a defendant who did not personally treat the plaintiff if there is no genuine issue of fact regarding that lack of p…
[2] A trial court errs by refusing to consider a plaintiff's request to amend a complaint when summary judgment is otherwise appropriate, if the amendment seeks to clarify ex…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While it is true that one may not alter his legal position in order to defeat summary judgment, it is also true that where summary judgment should be entered in a cause and it appears the unsuccessful party may have a cause of action or defense if properly pleaded, the proper procedure is to grant the motion for summary judgment but with leave to amend.”
Establishes the key principle that even when summary judgment is appropriate, amendments may be allowed if they clarify existing allegations rather than introduce new legal theories.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn O'Brien sought treatment for basal cell carcinoma on his nose at Aloha Medical Center. The appellants alleged the treatment was not in accordance…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Leave To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellants challenge a summary judgment for the appellee which was entered after the trial judge refused to consider the appellants’ request to amend their complaint. While we agree that the motion for summary judgment was properly granted, we hold that the trial judge erred in refusing to consider the appellants’ request to amend. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the appellants be permitted to amend their complaint.
The appellants’ initial complaint named several defendants, including the appellee. In essence, the complaint alleged that the appellant John O’Brien appeared at the Aloha Medical Center for care and treatment of a basal cell carcinoma on Mr. O’Brien’s nose. The appellants allege in general that the treatment which Mr. O’Brien received at the Aloha Medical Center was not in accordance with prevailing professional standards of care and treatment and, as a result, it became necessary to surgically remove the majority of Mr. O’Brien’s nose, requiring extensive reconstructive plastic surgery.
Two months after the complaint was filed, the appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the appellee had never personally treated Mr. O’Brien. It appears that there is no genuine issue concerning that fact. Accordingly, the trial judge quite properly entered summary judgment for the appellee. However, at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the appellants asked that they be allowed to amend their complaint against the appellee to allege a re-spondeat superior theory, in that Mr. O’Brien was treated by persons at the Aloha Medical Center under the appellee’s direction and control. The appellee asserts that the trial judge properly refused to consider the appellants’ request to amend because the proposed amendment was an attempt to alter the appellants’ legal theory of recovery as set forth in their complaint for the purpose of defeating summary judgment. While it is true that one may not alter his legal position in order to defeat summary judgment, it is also true that where summary judgment should be entered in a cause and it appears the unsuccessful party may have a cause of action or defense if properly pleaded, the proper procedure is to grant the motion for summary judgment but with leave to amend. While a plaintiff may not inject a new theory of liability, if the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the allegations of the complaint, the amendment should be allowed. Sea Shore Motel Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 233 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
The gist of the appellants’ complaint is that Mr. O’Brien received care and treatment at the Aloha Medical Center which was “provided” by the appellee. It is further alleged that at the clinic, the appellee caused certain procedures to be undertaken. We believe the allegations of the complaint would support a theory of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior and that the appellants should be allowed to amend their complaint to develop that theory as against the appellee.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment for the appellee and remand with directions that the appellee’s motion for summary judgment be granted but with leave to the appellants to amend their complaint.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cinque v. Ungaro, 622 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…changed. Under these circumstances the amendment clearly relates back to the original filing. See Schachner v. Sandler, 616 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lashley, 580 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); O’Brien v. Young, 538 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Scarfone v. Mann, 442 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Since none of the exceptions to the general rule apply to the facts of this case, it was error to deny the motion to amend. Thus the summary final judgment was also flawed. We…
-
Mendez v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 657 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…trast to ownership of the dangerous instrumentality. The matter not having been set for trial, we reverse the order denying the amendment under the principles announced in Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1963); O’Brien v. Young, 538 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 449 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); McClendon v. Key, 209 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), and return the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…udgment should be entered in a cause but it appears that the unsuccessful party may have a cause of action or defense if properly pleaded, the proper procedure is to grant the motion for summary judgment but with leave to amend.”); O’Brien v. Young, 538 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Conclusion We conclude, based on the unique facts and circumstances of the instant case, that the summary final judgment and the order dissolving the lis pendens must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings o…
Authorities Cited
- SEA Shore Motel Corp. & Sea Scape Motel Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. & Emery-Richardson & Assocs., Inc., 233 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)