1998 -NMCA- 169, Crumpacker v. DeNaples
| Decision Date | 24 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,759,18,759 |
| Citation | 968 P.2d 799,126 N.M. 288,1998 NMCA 169 |
| Parties | , 1998 -NMCA- 169 Pamela Sue CRUMPACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. DeNAPLES, M.D., and Guadalupe Medical Center Hospital, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
¶1 In this medical malpractice action, Plaintiff appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. On appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in (1) refusing to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 1-015(A) NMRA 1998 and Rule 1-017(A) NMRA 1998, to join the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding as an additional party plaintiff; and (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit in her own name. We determine the trial court erred under both issues and thus reverse and remand.
¶2 In October 1992, Plaintiff underwent surgery for herniated discs in her neck. The surgery was performed by Defendant Mark DeNaples (Defendant DeNaples or DeNaples), a neurosurgeon at Defendant Guadalupe Medical Center Hospital (Defendant Hospital or Hospital). The procedure involved the removal of a disc from Plaintiff's neck and a fusion using a bone graft from Plaintiff's right hip. After the surgery, Plaintiff continued having problems, including severe headaches, numbness and weakness in the left leg and the left arm, restricted neck movement, aching and burning in the neck and shoulder areas, depression, fatigue, and loss of stamina. Plaintiff alleges that her problems were the result of Defendants' negligence.
¶3 In May 1994, Plaintiff and her husband, who was terminally ill with a brain tumor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in federal court. Plaintiff claims that, at the time of the bankruptcy filing, she was unaware that she had any personal injury claims against Defendants. As a result, she did not inform her bankruptcy counsel of any potential claims against Defendants and did not list as an asset of the estate any right of action against Defendants on her bankruptcy schedule. In January 1995, there was a meeting of the creditors, after which Plaintiff believed that the bankruptcy was essentially over.
¶4 In June 1995, Plaintiff accompanied her husband to see Dr. Erich Marchand, a neurosurgeon, who was treating Plaintiff's husband for the brain tumor. When Plaintiff complained about her continuing neck problems, Dr. Marchand examined her and advised her that the bone graft from her surgery in October 1992 was pressing on her spine and that the persisting problems were the result of "surgical error" or medical malpractice.
¶5 Based on Dr. Marchand's advice, in July 1995, Plaintiff hired a personal injury attorney to pursue her medical malpractice claim against Defendants. The attorney was not the same attorney who represented Plaintiff in the bankruptcy proceeding. As required by NMSA 1978, § 41-5-15 (1976), Plaintiff's attorney first filed an application with the New Mexico Medical Review Commission asserting a claim of malpractice against Defendant DeNaples. In January 1996, the medical review panel voted and ruled unanimously that DeNaples had committed malpractice. In February 1996, Plaintiff filed the instant malpractice action against Defendants. Plaintiff, however, failed to inform her personal injury attorney of her bankruptcy filing in May 1994. She stated that she "did not seek to hide or avoid any disclosure of the bankruptcy proceeding at any time, but simply believed that the matter was over and ... had no idea that the bankruptcy was involved in [her] claims in this [malpractice] matter...."
¶6 Plaintiff did not take any steps during the bankruptcy proceedings to amend the schedule of assets to include the malpractice claim against Defendants. Nor did she disclose to the bankruptcy trustee (the Trustee) her pending litigation against Defendants. In August 1996, the bankruptcy case closed, and the debts of Plaintiff and her husband were discharged.
¶7 Plaintiff later hired new counsel to pursue her malpractice claims against Defendants. During discovery in the case, Defendants learned that Plaintiff had previously filed for bankruptcy but did not list as an asset of the estate the instant malpractice claim against Defendants. Consequently, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that, under bankruptcy law, Plaintiff's malpractice claim was the property of the bankruptcy estate. Defendant's motion was premised on the argument that only the Trustee was the real party in interest to assert the claim, and Plaintiff thus lacked standing to bring the suit.
¶8 In April 1997, immediately after Defendants had filed their motions for summary judgment, Plaintiff's bankruptcy counsel moved to reopen the bankruptcy for the purpose of reappointing the Trustee and amending the bankruptcy schedule to include the malpractice claim against Defendants. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to reopen the case so that the malpractice claim could be administered by the Trustee for the benefit of the creditors whose claims totaled approximately $38,000. According to the Trustee's affidavit filed in support of Plaintiff's motion to amend and in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Trustee authorized Plaintiff's personal injury attorneys to pursue the malpractice claim against Defendants on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee also consented to his joinder as a plaintiff in the suit against Defendants.
¶9 In May 1997, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to join the Trustee as a plaintiff in the malpractice action. In support of her motion, Plaintiff argued that the omission of the Trustee as a plaintiff from the original complaint was an "honest mistake" within the meaning of the term in Rule 1-017(A).
¶10 In opposing the motion to amend, Defendants disputed whether there was an honest mistake by Plaintiff. They argued that the failure to name the Trustee as the real party in interest was the result of Plaintiff's neglect and lack of diligence. They also contended that joinder was not allowed under Rule 1-017(A) because the statute of limitations had expired.
¶11 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and denied Plaintiff leave to file her amended complaint. The trial court reasoned that Plaintiff had filed her malpractice action six months before the bankruptcy closure. As a result, she had plenty of time to notify bankruptcy counsel of the pending malpractice suit and to amend the bankruptcy schedule to include the claim against Defendants as an unliquidated asset of the estate. The trial court also concluded that Plaintiff had no standing to pursue the malpractice claim because of her discharge from bankruptcy.
¶12 This appeal followed. In October 1997, the Trustee filed an independent lawsuit against Defendants asserting the same claims asserted by Plaintiff in the instant suit.
¶13 Initially, we address Defendant Hospital's argument that the Trustee's filing of a separate but identical lawsuit against Defendants renders this appeal moot insofar as it relates to Hospital. Defendants rely on G.E.W. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Johnston Co., 115 N.M. 727, 858 P.2d 103 (Ct.App.1993). We reject this argument.
¶14 As Plaintiff notes in her reply brief, upon the trial court's dismissal of the action, it became apparent to Plaintiff's counsel that an applicable statute of limitations relevant to the claim against Defendant Hospital could possibly expire during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, to preserve the claim against the possible bar of the statute of limitations, counsel filed a separate action against Defendants in the name of the Trustee. See George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 377, 600 P.2d 822, 829 (Ct.App.1979) (). Plaintiff is correct in pointing out that G.E.W. did not involve the statute-of-limitations dilemma faced by Plaintiff in this case. There was no prejudice to the plaintiff in G.E.W. arising from dismissal of the first lawsuit because there was no similar statute-of-limitations bar to the second lawsuit, such as Plaintiff faces here. Additionally, as we more fully discuss in this opinion, the analysis in G.E.W., which favors joinder of the real party in interest under our state's rules of civil procedure to avoid the multiplicity of suits, generally supports Plaintiff's claim on the merits. We therefore hold that Plaintiff's appeal is not moot as it relates to Hospital.
¶15 Defendant DeNaples makes the related argument that Plaintiff is not an aggrieved party for purposes of bringing this appeal. See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 (1966) (); St. Sauver v. New Mexico Peterbilt, Inc., 101 N.M. 84, 85-86, 678 P.2d 712, 713-14 (Ct.App.1984) (). However, as we discuss below, although Plaintiff was not the real party in interest to pursue the claim against Defendants, she had standing to sue and is, therefore, an aggrieved party entitled to bring this appeal.
¶16 The standard of review for the denial of a motion to amend is abuse of discretion. See Schmitz v. Smentowski, 109 N.M. 386, 390, 785...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Campbell
...Rousseau v. Diemer, 24 F.Supp.2d 137, 143-44 (D.Mass. 1998); Hammes v. Brumley, 659 N.E.2d 1021, 1030 (Ind.1995); Crumpacker v. DeNaples, 126 N.M. 288, 296, 968 P.2d 799 (1998). ¶ 15 Following our precedent and the decisions of other courts regarding the substitution of a bankruptcy trustee......
-
TEAGUE-STREBECK MOTORS v. CHRYSLER INS.
...was added as a plaintiff. {8} We believe that the issue before us is governed by our recent decision in Crumpacker v. DeNaples, 1998-NMCA-169, 126 N.M. 288, 968 P.2d 799. Crumpacker's suit against the defendants arose out of surgery performed in 1992. In 1994 she filed for bankruptcy. The b......
-
Moody v. Stribling
...to the corporation." Id. ¶ 14. At oral argument Tom and Martha also referred us to our recent decision in Crumpacker v. DeNaples, 1998-NMCA-169, 126 N.M. 288, 968 P.2d 799, discussing Rule 1-017. We fail to see how Crumpacker helps Tom and Martha's position as we agree with them that only a......
-
Asmus v. Capital Region Family Practice
...required allowing the amendments and the defendants would suffer no prejudice from allowing the amendment. In Crumpacker v. DeNaples, 126 N.M. 288, 968 P.2d 799 (App.1998), the defendant moved for summary judgment based on lack of standing under circumstances very similar to those in this c......