Caldwell v. Evans

The defendant lacked standing to object to the motion to add plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action against him and his professional practice, because the number of plaintiffs did not affect the outcome for him since only one action could be brought against him.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Craig Caldwell and his professional practice, Internal Medicine Associates of Middle Georgia, P. C. collectively Caldwell, appeal the trial court’s order permitting a substitution and addition of plaintiffs in this medical malpractice case following the deaths of the named plaintiffs. Caldwell contends that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to add only two of the five surviving children of the deceased plaintiffs, arguing that the wrongful death statute requires all surviving children must be parties to the suit in the absence of a surviving spouse. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.

In 2012, Claudia Evans sued Caldwell for medical malpractice, alleging that he had negligently failed to diagnose her cancer. Claudia’s husband, Edison Evans, asserted a claim for loss of consortium. Edison died in 2013, and Claudia died in 2014, leaving five surviving children. Two of those children – the ones appointed as executors of their parents’ estates – filed a motion to substitute parties and add additional parties. The trial court granted the motion, substituting the two children in their capacities as co-executors in place of the parents and adding the two children as additional parties for the purpose of pursuing a wrongful death claim for Claudia’s life. At Caldwell’s request, the court certified its order for immediate review, we granted Caldwell’s application for interlocutory appeal, and this appeal followed.

Caldwell v. Evans

The defendant lacked standing to object to the motion to add plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action against him and his professional practice, because the number of plaintiffs did not affect the outcome for him since only one action could be brought against him.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report