Case Name: Stanley FRANKOWITZ, D.O., and Sunrise Medical Group, P.A., Appellants, v. Myrtle Eileen PROPST and Matthias J. Propst, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-03-05
Citations: 489 So. 2d 51
Docket Number: No. 83-2393
Parties: Stanley FRANKOWITZ, D.O., and Sunrise Medical Group, P.A., Appellants, v. Myrtle Eileen PROPST and Matthias J. Propst, Appellees.
Judges: WALDEN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 489
Pages: 51–54

Head Matter:
Stanley FRANKOWITZ, D.O., and Sunrise Medical Group, P.A., Appellants, v. Myrtle Eileen PROPST and Matthias J. Propst, Appellees.
No. 83-2393.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 5, 1986.
David L. Kahn and Harry M. Hausman, of David L. Kahn, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Guy B. Bailey, Jr. and Mercedes C. Bus-to, of Bailey & Dawes, Miami, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
FREDRICKA G. SMITH, Associate Judge.
In this appeal, Dr. Frankowitz, defendant in a medical malpractice case, challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for directed verdict and subsequent entry of judgment for plaintiffs upon the jury's verdict. The trial court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the Propsts' lawsuit. We disagree and reverse.
In the present case, the question of whether the plaintiffs should have known of Dr. Frankowitz's role in the treatment of Mrs. Propst earlier than two years before bringing this action was not an issue for the jury to determine. The means of discovering the fact of Dr. Frankowitz's involvement were readily available to the plaintiffs through an examination of the hospital and medical records, and therefore, as a matter of law, their delay in examining the records did not postpone the running of the statute of limitations. Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25, 34 (Fla.1976).
The statute of limitations having run before the filing of the amended complaint which added Dr. Frankowitz as a defendant and alleged that Sunrise Medical Group, P.A., was vicariously responsible for Fran-kowitz's acts, we now consider whether this amended complaint can be said to relate back to the original complaint timely filed against Dr. Frankowitz's colleagues and Sunrise Medical Group, P.A.
While in the present case it is likely that Dr. Frankowitz knew that his employer, the professional association, and his co-practitioners were being sued by the Propsts, it cannot be said that Dr. Fran-kowitz and his associates shared an "identity of interest" or that the existing lawsuit afforded Dr. Frankowitz "fair notice" of the plaintiffs' claim against him. Compare Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir.1968). The original complaint filed against Drs. Neily, Thesing, Yezbick and Miller alleging their negligent treatment of Mrs. Propst in failing to diagnose the cause of her post-operative difficulties does not in effect assert a legal claim against Dr. Frankowitz, nor does it sufficiently apprise Dr. Frankowitz that a legal claim against him existed. The conduct or operational facts which give rise to Mrs. Propst's claim against Dr. Frankowitz are not sufficiently developed in the allegations of the original complaint so as to satisfy precepts of fair notice.
We thus conclude that the amended complaint states a new cause of action and does not relate back to the original complaint timely filed against Dr. Frankowitz's colleagues and the professional association as the employer of the colleagues. See Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm, 358 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Since this new cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, we reverse the judgment for the plaintiffs and the denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict, and direct that judgment be entered for Dr. Frankowitz.
Reversed with directions.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
. There was no evidence that plaintiffs were prevented from obtaining the medical records or that defendants made any attempt to conceal the facts from plaintiffs. Cf. Schafer v. Lehrer, 476 So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).