The major basis for the new "Motion for Reconsideration" (a request for the court to reconsider its prior denial of an earlier Motion for Reconsideration of an initial court decision to dismiss defense objections to the Complaint) is this. From the actual filing (emphases mine):
|(click to enlarge)|
Here is likely why the court "never addressed the issue": they don't have time to address frivolous claims. Neither does the Superior court that also declined to hear this argument. (It's actually the defense who never addressed the following in all their filings):
From the official publication of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee in the state, effective a decade ago:
Further - from the actual mandated Certificate of Merit document, direct from the State code:
|I don't think the Courts expect parties to edit their documents to accommodate their own whims.|
The only option for identifying those sued is “Name of Defendant.” No fields are present specifying “Name(s) of Defendant’s agent, employee (etc.) for whom Defendant is being held vicariously liable”, or similar, nor is some other multi-labeled Certificate of Merit for such purposes in existence.
On the other hand, the delays have allowed me to be able to see and review metadata (e.g., audit trails and other "data about data") produced from the very same EHR system that was in use at this hospital, via my legal support work in another case in the state. It took time for that production to occur. This will make it much harder for the hospital to pull the wool over my eyes regarding metadata discovery.
That's one reason why I'd been patient with all this.
My patience is now long expired.
My mother, the original plaintiff, is unavailable for comment.