Opinion ID: 1414647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Relationship of the Two Claims

Text: The question now is whether there is a sufficient relationship between the two pleadings so that the last one relates back to the original. Malone has two well-established principles of law working in his favor, namely, the liberal construction of pleadings under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the liberal construction of claims in favor of the workman under workmen's compensation statutes. Since the early adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in New Mexico, our courts have recognized that the principal function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the claim asserted. Seasons, Inc. v. Atwell, 86 N.M. 751, 527 P.2d 792 (1974). This is to indicate the nature of the case being brought and to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial. It is only necessary that the pleading generally indicate the type of litigation that is involved and give a summary of the case that affords fair notice. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 22 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Securities and Exchange Com'n v. Timetrust, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 34 (N.D.Cal. 1939). The adoption of the Rules of Procedure in 1938 signaled the end of fact pleading in federal court and the approval of notice pleading, ... with the contemplation that the facts would be developed during discovery proceedings and the theory of the case set forth in the pretrial memorandum. Matlack, Inc. v. Hupp Corporation, 57 F.R.D. 151, 16 F.R.Serv.2d 1429 (E.D.Pa. 1972). It is important to Malone in this case that the amended pleading relate back, for the reason that it was filed after the statute of limitations had run within which an original claim could be filed. N.M.R.Civ.P. 15(c) [§ 21-1-1(15)(c), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. 1970)] covers the relation back of amendments in pleadings. It states in part: 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 date of the original pleading. (Emphasis added.) In Holman, supra, an employee filed a claim for workmen's compensation. After the statute of limitations had run for filing an original claim, the workman found that his claim should have been for occupational disease. He filed an amended claim. This Court considered Rule 15(c) and stated that in conjunction with Rule 15(a) which provides for freely granting leave to amend when justice requires, it would be a departure from the liberal spirit of our rules to hold that the amended claim did not relate back. The Court adopted language from Brown v. New York Life Ins. Co., 32 F. Supp. 443, 444 (D.N.J. 1940) that, if the gist of the action or the subject of controversy remains the same ... although the form of liability asserted or the alleged incidents of the transaction may be different, the amended claim passes the test and relates back. Defendants' contention that Corzine v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 80 N.M. 418, 456 P.2d 892 (Ct.App. 1969) is persuasive authority here has no validity, the facts being materially different. Workmen's compensation laws are a highly favored and salutary type of proceeding. They are remedial in nature. The protective functions of these laws should not be thwarted by cumbersome procedures and technicalities of pleading. The major thrust of this type of legislation is to achieve a just decision by the shortest and quickest possible route. Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Chapman, 88 N.M. 292, 540 P.2d 222 (1975); 3 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 78.10, at 15-9 to 15-10 (1976); Accord, Hildreth v. Director of Division of Labor, 184 Colo. 259, 520 P.2d 112 (1974). The Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial legislation and must be liberally construed to effect is purpose. E.g., Schiller v. Southwest Air Rangers, Inc., 87 N.M. 476, 535 P.2d 1327 (1975); Anaya v. City of Santa Fe, 80 N.M. 54, 451 P.2d 303 (1969); Casados v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 78 N.M. 392, 432 P.2d 103 (1967); Mirabal v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 77 N.M. 576, 425 P.2d 740 (1967); Sessing v. Yates Drilling Company, 74 N.M. 550, 395 P.2d 824 (1964); Mascarenas v. Kennedy, 74 N.M. 665, 397 P.2d 312 (1964). Professor Larson states: In pleadings under a compensation act, calling things by wrong names, or bringing a petition under a wrong title, or making other harmless mistakes as to details such as dates, are immaterial if the intention of the pleading is clear. 3 A. Larson, supra, § 78.11. (Larson cites, inter alia, Holman, supra . ) [C]onsiderable liberality is usually shown in allowing amendment of pleadings to correct such defects as vagueness, omission of essential facts, or inaccuracy in the description of the injury. Id. at 15-11. See, e.g., Winter v. Roberson Construction Company, 70 N.M. 187, 372 P.2d 381 (1962); Shepard v. Chrysler Corporation, 430 F.2d 161 (5th Cir.1970), Lauer v. Tri-Mont Cooperative Creamery, 287 Minn. 221, 178 N.W.2d 248 (1970); Taylor v. Armour and Company, 186 Kan. 51, 348 P.2d 632 (1960); Potomac Insurance Co. v. Milligan, 335 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App. 1960); In re Hankowski's Case, 339 Mass. 388, 159 N.E.2d 88 (1959). Larson notes that generally the only limitation on liberality of leave to amend pleadings is where the amendment will result in undue surprise or prejudice to the opposing party. 3 Larson, supra. We now examine the allegations in the two claims, cautioned to liberality and charged with the duty to determine whether the first claim gave defendants fair notice of the wrong about which Malone complained in his second pleading and whether the latter document resulted in undue surprise or prejudice to defendants. There are many significant facts that are common to both pleadings, the principal one being that the whole purpose of each claim was to obtain workmen's compensation for total disability to Malone's hands. The parties are the same. As to the question of notice to Swift, it is important to note that the close relationship of employer-employee had existed since March of 1971, the date on which Malone claimed he was first injured. Both claims assert that Malone lives in Clovis, that he worked for Swift at the time his hands were injured, that he is totally disabled as the result of job-related injuries to his hands, that Globe paid compensation and medical expenses from May 6, 1975, until June 6, 1975, and that further compensation and medical expenses were denied. The fact that compensation is alleged in both pleadings to have been paid for the identical period of time, and then denied, was sufficient to alert defendants that the claims were related to the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. Rule 15(c). It warps the imagination to believe that defendants were not fully aware of the particulars regarding Malone's alleged accidents, injuries, disabilities, claims and what he was attempting to accomplish when he filed his amended claim. There is no reason to believe that defendants were surprised or that they were prejudiced by the filing of that document. We hold that the defendants had fair notice that the claims made in the latter pleading arose out of the same conduct, transactions and occurrences which Malone set forth or attempted to set forth in his original pleading. The last claim relates back to the first; therefore, the statute of limitations has not run. The contrary decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed. This cause is remanded to the district court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED. McMANUS, C.J., and SOSA and PAYNE, JJ., concur. FEDERICI, J., dissents.