Castro v. Linfante
Parents in a medical malpractice suit sought, four years into the litigation and nearly eight years after the alleged negligence, to amend their complaint to add loss of parental consortium claims under section 768.0415 on behalf of their three minor children. The Third DCA affirmed dismissal with prejudice, holding the children's claims did not relate back under rule 1.190(c) because they asserted a new and distinct cause of action brought by new parties after the two-year medical malpractice limitations period expired.
Key facts
- Parents sued for medical malpractice arising from alleged negligence occurring nearly eight years before suit; four years into litigation, parents sought to amend complaint to add loss of parental consortium claims on behalf of three minor children.
- Trial court dismissed the children's consortium claims, and parents appealed arguing the claims should relate back to the original complaint.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion resolves a recurring post-Kopel question: whether Kopel's liberalization of relation back for new causes of action also permits adding new plaintiffs (such as consortium claimants) after limitations expire… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.