In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc.

A misnomer occurs when a party misnames itself or another party, but the correct parties are involved. Courts generally allow parties to correct a misnomer because the party intended to be sued has been served and put on notice that it is the intended defendant. In a case like this, where the plaintiff misnames itself, the rationale for flexibility in the typical misnomer case, in which the plaintiff misnames the defendant, applies with even greater force. Texas Supreme Court, No. 08-0820, 08-28-2009

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jody Griswold required surgery as a result of allegedly negligent medical care. Griswold and his attorney, Peter Zavaletta, entered into an agreement with Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists (“GHOS”), whereby GHOS would perform the surgery in exchange for payment from the anticipated proceeds of Griswold’s pending health care liability suit.

GHOS later sued Griswold and Zavaletta in Cameron County, alleging that they failed to pay GHOS approximately $35,000 for medical services rendered. GHOS subsequently nonsuited that action. The non-suit was signed by GHOS’s attorney as “attorney for plaintiff” and included the correct cause number and style, but it identified GHOS as “Orthopaedic Specialists, L.L.P.,” omitting the “Greater Houston” predicate. GHOS then sued Griswold and Zavaletta in Harris County. The parties settled, and the Harris County court signed an agreed judgment on January 7, 2008.

Meanwhile, the Cameron County court had not yet dismissed the case. On February 28, 2008, the Cameron County court issued an order notifying the parties that the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless they appeared and showed good cause for the matter to remain on the docket. On March 10, Griswold and Zavaletta filed a counterclaim alleging that the Cameron County suit was frivolous. On April 3, the trial court signed an order dismissing the case without prejudice, but on April 7, the court set aside that order and set the case for trial. The court of appeals denied GHOS’s request for mandamus relief. ___ S.W.3d ___. We conditionally grant the writ.

In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal