Schultz by Schultz v. Romanace

Decision Date13 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 19991,19991
Citation906 S.W.2d 393
PartiesBrian S. SCHULTZ By Rudolph SCHULTZ, Guardian, Appellant, v. Jean Pierre ROMANACE, M.D., and Larry Carnagey, Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Glenn R. Gulick, Jr., Hershewe & Gulick, P.C., Joplin, for appellant.

David W. Hall, Jr., Richard L. Rollings, Jr., Bussell, O'Neal & Hall, Springfield, for respondent Romanace.

Frank Cottey, Schroff, Glass & Newberry, P.C., Springfield, for respondent Carnagey.

PARRISH, Judge.

This is an appeal of a judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondent Larry Carnagey and an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action with respect to respondent Jean Pierre Romanace, M.D. 1 The basis for the judgment on the pleadings and for the order dismissing the petition for failure to state a cause of action was the running of the applicable statute of limitations. This court affirms.

Appellant, by his guardian, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Missouri, June 18, 1992, alleging that he sustained personal injuries as a result of acts of negligence committed by certain providers of health care services. The petition alleged the negligent acts occurred on or about July 2, 1990.

The petition named the State of Missouri and seven identified individuals as defendants. It named Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, John Doe I, John Doe II and John Doe III as additional defendants. A paragraph in the body of the petition stated:

John Does, I, II, III, and Jane Does I, II, III, are persons whose identities are presently unknown but who were responsible for rendering skilled care, treatment, and supervision for Brian Schultz at Missouri Rehabilitation Center in Mount Vernon, Missouri. The true identities of said persons will be substituted at such time as they become known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests the order of the Court posting a copy of this petition in one or more places conspicuous to employees and staff of Missouri Rehabilitation Center at Mount Vernon.

The trial court entered an order for a copy of the petition to be posted at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center. A copy of the pleading and a copy of the trial court's order were posted on a bulletin board at that facility.

Appellant filed a First Amended Petition February 16, 1994. In addition to the seven identified individual defendants named in the original petition, the First Amended Petition named respondent Jean Pierre Romanace, M.D., and respondent Larry Carnagey as defendants. It again named Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, John Doe I, John Doe II and John Doe III as defendants. The State of Missouri had previously been dismissed as a defendant because of sovereign immunity.

Respondent Romanace filed his motion to dismiss May 18, 1994. Respondent Carnagey filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings August 25, 1994. Both motions asserted that appellant's action was barred by § 516.105. 2

Section 516.105 states:

All actions against physicians, hospitals, dentists, registered or licensed practical nurses, optometrists, podiatrists, pharmacists, chiropractors, professional physical therapists, and any other entity providing health care services and all employees of any of the foregoing acting in the course and scope of their employment, for damages for malpractice, negligence, error or mistake related to health care shall be brought within two years from the date of occurrence of the act of neglect complained of,.... [Emphasis added.]

Appellant raises one point on appeal. He contends the trial court erred in granting respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss the petition "because the suit against [Dr. Romanace and Mr. Carnagey] ... was timely filed in that the identification of the defendants as 'John Doe' defendants in the original timely petition constituted sufficient filing to toll the running of the statute of limitations."

Appellant relies primarily on Maddux v. Gardner, 239 Mo.App. 289, 192 S.W.2d 14 (1945). Maddux was a wrongful death action against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., the company's trustee, and the engineer and fireman of one of the company's trains that ran over the deceased.

The applicable statute of limitation in Maddux required the suit to be brought within one year after the death of the deceased. He was killed March 19, 1942. The suit was filed March 4, 1943. It identified the engineer and fireman as " 'John Doe', alleged to have been a citizen and resident of the State of Missouri, and the engineer on the train in question, and 'Richard Roe', alleged to have been a citizen and resident of the State of Missouri, and the fireman on the train." 192 S.W.2d at 17.

On January 7, 1944, more than one year following the date of death, the petition was amended by interlineation to drop the names John Doe and Richard Roe as defendants and to substitute B.A. Marble and S.B. Allison as defendants. The amendment described them as the engineer and fireman of the train.

At the close of the evidence, the plaintiff dismissed as to the railroad and the fireman, Allison. On appeal the defendants contended that the addition of Marble as a defendant was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

In Maddux the court held that the amendment related back to commencement of the suit; that the action against Marble was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court said:

The petition discloses that it was the intention of plaintiff to sue the engineer of the train.... The amending of the petition by inserting the name, Marble, was not the addition of another party to the cause of action but constituted a mere substitution of names. While no service of summons was had upon Marble, within the statutory time, or until after the expiration of one year from the date of the death of deceased, the service of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Caldwell v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers-South, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 1997
    ...to amendments changing the party against whom a claim is asserted, not to an amendment which seeks to add a party. Schultz v. Romanace, 906 S.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Mo.App.1995); Smith v. Overhead Door Corp., 859 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Mo.App.1993); see also Windscheffel v. Benoit, 646 S.W.2d 354, 356......
  • Wong v. Mortgage
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • April 18, 2011
    ...added). Relation back under Rule 55.33(c) "is inapplicable to the case in which a plaintiff seeks to add a party." Schultz v. Romanace, 906 S.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Mo. App. 1995). When new parties are added (instead of changed or substituted), there is no relation back even if the defendant "ha......
  • State v. Watts, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 1996
  • Stephens v. Dunn
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2014
    ...See State of Missouri ex rel. Holzum v. The Honorable Nancy L. Schneider, 342 S.W.3d 313 (Mo. banc 2011) ; Schultz by Schultz v. Romanace, 906 S.W.2d 393 (Mo.App.S.D.1995) ; and Smith v. Lewis, 669 S.W.2d 558 (Mo.App.W.D.1983), cited by Stephens. However, that is not the issue in this case.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT