PPA v. Stamford Hospital (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REQUEST TO AMEND # 167

INTRODUCTION

This action was filed by way of Complaint dated July 23, 2009.   The original complaint contains two Counts.   The first count alleged negligence as to the defendant Stamford Hospital and the second count was a claim of negligence against Yale New Haven Hospital.   The claim as to Yale New Haven Hospital has been withdrawn.   The defendant has answered the complaint and a scheduling order was entered establishing discovery dates and a trial date for September 2012.   The plaintiffs have submitted a request to amend the complaint dated August 26, 2011.   The defendants submitted an objection dated September 6, 2011 and a supplemental objection dated December 9, 2011.   The plaintiff filed a reply brief on December 16, 2011 and at the argument submitted an amended reply to correct the deposition testimony that was submitted on December 28, 2011.   The plaintiffs request to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for recklessness against Stamford Hospital.

DISCUSSION

Practice Book § 10–59 permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint within the first thirty days after the return day.   After thirty days, a plaintiff may amend a complaint by filing a request for leave to amend.  Practice Book § 10–60.   Whether to allow an amendment is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Development Corp., 266 Conn. 572, 583, 833 A.2d 908 (2003).   The plaintiffs argue in their memorandum and during the oral argument that the policy of the courts is to liberally permit amendments to the complaint and thus the court should liberally permit this amendment.   While this is true, the discretion of the court and the liberal approach to permitting an amendment of the complaint does not equate to an uncontrolled policy of permitting amendments to pleadings.   When presented with a request to amend the complaint, the court has an obligation to view the amendment and to determine if greater injustice will be done to the mover by denying him his day in court on the subject matter of the proposed amendment, or to his adversary by granting the motion, with the resultant delay.  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Grigerik v. Sharpe, 56 Conn.App. 314, 320, 742 A.2d 434, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 936, 747 A.2d 2 (2000).   The court is also under an obligation to comply solely with legal criteria in determining whether the amendment should be permitted.   Therefore, although the defendant argues that the court should not permit the amendment because it does not comply with the statute of limitations, this court will not consider the timeliness issue.   To do so at this time would not only establish a bad precedent but would also take the focus away from the court reasoning whether an amendment will unfairly prejudice the defendant if it should be permitted.   A decision on additional legal arguments may not provide the opportunity to the plaintiffs to have their case fully presented to the court with the amendments and will also prevent a full and complete presentation and analysis that addresses the issue of the statute of limitations.

The plaintiffs have requested to add a count in Recklessness to the original complaint dated July 23, 2009.   In particular, the plaintiffs contend that during the course of discovery they became aware of information which allegedly supports a cause of action for recklessness.   The defendant objects contending that the amendment would be prejudicial and delay the trial of the matter.   The defendant also argues in its supplemental objection that the amendment is improper because it is filed beyond the statute of limitations.   The plaintiff contends that the application is proper and that any argument concerning timeliness is not a proper objection to the motion to amend.

The present action has been subject to a scheduling order entered by this court to establish time periods for discovery including expert disclosures and depositions as well as dispositive motions.   The parties have been in the process of complying with these orders which if followed will allow a trial of the matter in September 2012.   The amendment which is filed by the plaintiff adds some specific facts which may require additional depositions.   These depositions have already been discussed by counsel.   Although the defendants contend that there is a prejudicial impact upon them, they failed to provide any support for the position.   The new cause of action is an extension of the claims in the original complaint that alleged that each facility, including Stamford Hospital, “is required to develop a system to insure ․ results are received on all newborns tested.”   The original complaint does not include the fact that the hospital had knowledge of the failure to implement this system like the allegations in the amendment.   The parties have nine months before the case is scheduled for trial and thus there is ample time to address the amended cause of action and if necessary, any deficiencies in the cause of action.

The Request to Amend the Complaint is granted and the objections are overruled.

THE COURT

Brazzel–Massaro, J.

Brazzel–Massaro, Barbara, J.