Opinion
No. CV 99 0585812S
March 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (#232)
In Sharp v. Mitchell, 209 Conn. 59 (1988), the court had to determine if the amended complaint related back to the original complaint or stated a new cause of action. The Sharp court defined a cause of action as "that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief." Supra at 71 (citations omitted).
"A change in, or an addition to, a ground of negligence or an act of negligence arising out of the single group of facts which was originally claimed to have brought about the unlawful injury to the plaintiff does not change the cause of action." Sharp, supra, at 71 (citations omitted).
"In Giglio v. Connecticut Light Power Co., [ 180 Conn. 230, 1980] 239-40, we recognized that our relation back doctrine is akin to rule 15(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part: (c) Relation back of amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the original pleading. Further, we noted the policy behind the rule as follows `Rule 15(c) is based upon the concept that a party who is notified of litigation concerning a given conduct transaction or occurrence has been given all the notice that statutes of limitation are intended to afford.'" Sharp, supra, at 72.
The objection of Dr. Soo Kang Choi regarding the applicability of allegations (g)(h)(i) to the statutes of limitation is overruled. Using the standards enunciated in Sharp, the court finds that count two of the fourth amended complaint adding to paragraph 10 allegations (g)(h) and (i) relate back to the original pleadings in that (g) alleges failure to give Eric Dean sufficient fluids during the resuscitation effort; (h) alleges that he delayed too long in establishing an IV in Eric Dean; (i) alleges that he failed to timely respond to the call for resuscitation.
As for the objection of the defendant that he was prejudiced, the court overruled the objection and articulated on the record its reasons for doing so.
Hennessey, J.