WPC # VU:a % 0(Lw 4  0 Z b 0Dj 0J  0T 0^T 0h 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d BU*B)>DCg AMv~ D3 v@ 0@ AOS 0Dh D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLL,  AZ"Arial RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT  E  E  E  E +  D S   U  I U E E t   I ӀπX#?3|x (8(2R$ !  4   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd-%C << G !  #d##  #   YYY FILED#X October27,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk   !#d##   $ 4          Rule15.03wasamendedtoallowrelationbackifthenewpartytobebroughtinbyamendmenthasreceivednoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionwithin120daysofcommencementoftheaction.Tenn.R.Civ.P.,Rule15.03.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #   4   4     \RA'\  \RA'\7XXdd7      R&'%A1-j|`  `@R @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON       FORPUBLICATION LINDAGRANTHAMand@ ) Filed: 򀀀October27,1997 WILBURNGRANTHAM,@ )@ ) APPELLANTS,@ ) MADISONCIRCUIT@ ) NO.C9446v.@ ) @ )JACKSONMADISONCOUNTY@ ) HON.WHITLAFON,JUDGEGENERALHOSPITALDISTRICT,@ )@ ) APPELLEE.@ ) NO.02S019611CV00095FORAPPELLANTS:   FORAPPELLEE:WilliamG.Hatton    JerryD.Kizer,Jr.Bolivar     DaleConder,Jr.      Jackson@ #OPINION#X COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED; HOLDER,J.TRIALCOURTAFFIRMED@ OPINION  Thisappealaddressesaplaintiff'sabilitytoamendacomplainttoreflectadefendant'scorrectnameundertherelationbackprovisionsofRule15.03.Thetrialcourtpermittedtheplaintiffstoamendtheircomplaint.Theappellatecourtreversed,holdingthattheplaintiffswereprecludedfromamendingtheircomplainttoreflectanewdefendantbecausenoticewasservedonthedefendantaftertheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitations.Wereversetheappellatecourtandholdthat:(1)theamendmentdidnotnameanewpartyforpurposesofRule15.03;and(2)theamendmentrelatesbacktotheoriginalfilingofthecomplaint.      BACKGROUND    Theplaintiffs,LindaandWilburGrantham,filedsuitagainstthedefendant,JacksonMadisonCountyHospitalDistrict,allegingthatMs.Granthamsustainedinjurieswhenshefellindefendant'sparkinglotonFebruary20,1993.TheircomplaintwasfiledonFebruary18,1994,andnamedJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalasthedefendant.Thehospital'sagentforserviceofprocesswasservedonFebruary24,1994. Thehospitalfiledamotiontodismissarguingthattheplaintiffomittedtheword"District"fromitsnameandthatJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalwasnotalegalentitycapableofbeingsued.Theplaintiffsfiledamotiontoamendtheircomplainttoincludetheword"District."Thetrialcourtgrantedtheplaintiffs'motion.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,findingthattheplaintiffswereattemptingtoaddanewparty.Theappellatecourtheldthattheamendmentdidnotrelatebacktothefilingoftheoriginalcomplaintbecausethedefendantwasservedaftertheexpirationoftimeforcommencementofaction.      ANALYSIS    ThepresentcaseiscontrolledbyTenn.R.Civ.P.,Rule15.03.AlthoughRule15.03hasbeenamended,theplaintiffs'actionwasfiledpriortotheeffectivedateofthe1995amendment. (   ׀Theruleineffectwhentheplaintiffs'suitwasinitiatedreadasfollows:8 15.03RelationBackofAmendments.Whenevertheclaimordefenseassertedintheamendedpleadingsaroseoutoftheconduct,transactionoroccurrencessetforthorattemptedtobesetforthintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbacktothedateoftheoriginalpleading.Anamendmentchangingthepartyagainstwhomtheclaimisassertedrelatesbackiftheforegoingprovisionissatisfiedandif,withintheperiodprovidedbylawforcommencingtheactionagainsthim,thepartytobebroughtinbytheamendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthathewillnotbeprejudicedinmaintaininghisdefenseonthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butforamisnomerorothersimilarmistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsthim.Exceptasabovespecified,nothinginthisruleshallbeconstruedtoextendanyperiodoflimitationsgoverningthetimeinwhichanyactionmaybebrought.Accordingly,therearetwoinquiriesunderRule15.03:(1)didtheamendmentchangeoraddanewparty;and(2)ifso,didtheamendingpartysatisfythenoticerequirements.Amendmentsneitherchangingnoraddinganewpartymayrelatebacktothetimeoftheoriginalpleadingwithoutthesecondinquirybeingmade. ThedefendantcontendsandtheappellatecourtfoundthatthiscaseiscontrolledbyDukev.ReplogleEnterprises,a/k/a/ReplogleSawmill,891S.W.2d205(Tenn.1994).InDuke,thiscourtheldthatamendmentsaddinganewpartywillrelatebacktothetimeoftheoriginalcomplaintonlyifthenewpartybeingaddedhadnoticeoftheoriginalfilingpriortotheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitations.Id.at206.Duke,however,didnotaddressamislabelingofthecorrectparty. Webelievethattheplaintiffsdidnotselectthewrongdefendantbutsimplymislabeledtherightdefendant.Plaintiffsproperlyidentifiedthedefendantinseveralrespects.TheyreferredtothedefendantasahealthcarefacilitydoingbusinessinMadisonCounty,Tennessee.Theyservedthecomplaintonthedefendant'sproperagentforserviceofprocessatdefendant'splaceofbusiness.Theyalsoapproximatedthedefendant'snameinthecaptionofthecomplaintas"JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospital."Thedefendant'scorrectnameis"JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict."Everywordintheplaintiffs'designationappearsinthecorrectdesignation.Thesoledifferenceisthattheplaintiffsomittedtheword"District."SeeDatskowv.Teledyne,899F.2d1298(2ndCir.1990)(holdingamendmentdidnotaddnewpartywhereTeledyne,Inc.wasamendedtoTeledyneIndustrial,Inc.). ThefactsinthiscasemaybecontrastedwiththoseinDukev.ReplogleEnterprises,a/k/aReplogleSawmill,891S.W.2d205(Tenn.1994).TheplaintiffinDukefiledacomplaintagainst"ReplogleEnterprises,a/k/a,ReplogleSawmill."Theplaintiffthenattemptedtoamendthecomplainttoincludethenameofanindividual,NathanReplogle.Id.at205.ThisCourtfoundthattheamendmentaddedanewpartyandwassubjecttothenoticerequirementsunderTenn.R.Civ.P.,Rule15.03.Id.at206. UnlikeDuke,theplaintiffsinthepresentcasearenotattemptingtoaddthenameofanindividualoranotherbusiness.Theyaremerelyattemptingtocorrectthemislabelingofthepartytheyintendedtosue.Wefindthattheapproximationintheoriginalcomplaintwassufficientlyclosetopreventprejudicebyapprisingthedefendantitwasbeingsued.Theamendedcomplaint'sclaim"aroseoutofthesameconduct,transactionoroccurrencesetforth...intheoriginal[complaint]."Tenn.R.Civ.P.,Rule15.03.TherequirementsofRule15.03havebeensatisfied,andtheplaintiffsshouldbeallowedtoamendtheircomplaint.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee,JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict&  ,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.'  &             JaniceM.Holder,Justice'  ̜&  Concurring: Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Reid,andBirch,J.J.'