Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cathy Lee Barrette v. Vincent John Yakavonis, M.d.

March 20, 20092009 R.I. LEXIS 31

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of a medical-malpractice complaint because the pleading showed treatment occurred more than three years before suit and alleged no facts invoking the statutory discovery rule. It also held that, after dismissal, the plaintiff could amend only with leave of court and that denial of leave was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amendment did not articulate facts supporting delayed discovery.

Holding

  • Pleading the discovery rule. A complaint that shows on its face that a medical-malpractice claim was filed outside the ordinary three-year limitations period must contain allegations supporting application of the discovery rule; because this complaint did not, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper.
  • Leave to amend after dismissal. Once the motion to dismiss had been granted and an order dismissing the complaint had entered, the plaintiff no longer had an absolute right to amend as of course; leave to amend was discretionary, and its denial was not an abuse of discretion where the plaintiff offered no specific factual basis for the discovery rule.

Docket 2007-310-Appeal

Cited authorities

  • Rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 8(a)
  • Rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 8(a)
  • Rule 8(a)
  • Rule 8(a)
  • Rule 12(b)(6)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF