SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
CORLEEN PETERSEN AS THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR
CORLINA COLLINS Cm] No SX 14 CV 015
PLAINTIFF ACTION FOR MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DR JEFFREY CHASE, DR ADAM
FLOWERS ALEX PITMA PA, AND THE CITE AS 2021 v1 SUPER XML
VIRGIN ISLANDS HOSPITALS &
HEALTH FACILITIES CORPORATION
DEFENDANTS
Ronald E Russell, Esq
The Russell Law Firm
Kingshill, U S Virgin Islands
For Plamnfl‘
Patricia Quinland, Esq
Virgin Islands Department of Justioe
Kingshill, U S Virgin Islands
For Defendant Dr Jefiey Chase
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte for review
BACKGROUND
On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff Corlina Collins (hereinafter “Collins) filed a complaint
against Defendant Dr Jeffrey Chase (hereinafter “Chase”), Defendant Dr John Doe, Defendant
Jane Doe, and Defendant Schneider Regional Medical Center (hereinafter “SRMC”) in connection
Petersen v Chase e! a!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER m
Page 2 of l6
with the medical treatment she received during the period of June 12, 2013 through August 27,
2013 The complaint included one count of negligence against all the defendants '
On March 18, 2014, James L Hymes, III, Esq of the Law Offices of James L Hymes, III,
P C filed a notice of appearance for Chase and SRMC On that same date, Chase and SRMC filed
their answer and affirmative defenses in response to Collins’ complaint
On June 2, 2014, this matter was reassigned from the Honorable Douglas A Brady to the
Honorable Robert A Molloy
On August 13, 2014, Collins filed a motion to amend complaint “to substitute the names
‘Dr John Doe’ and ‘Dr Jane Doe’ as Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA, respectively” and
“to add additional facts related to the injuries asserted in the original complaint ” A redline copy
of the proposed first amended complaint reflectmg the changes made to the initial complaint and
a clean copy of the proposed first amended complaint were attached to Collins’ August 13, 2014
motion to amend complaint 2
On December 10, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby the Court granted Collins’
August 13, 2014 motion to amend complaint, ordered Collins to amend the complaint and cure the
deficiencies identified in the order within thirty days after the date of entry of the order, ordered
that failure to cure these deficiencies may result in dismissal of this matter for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and ordered that copies of the order provided to Ronald E Russell, Esq ,
' Collins did not set forth the specific name of the count in her complaint Nevertheless, based on the allegations
contained in her complaint, the Court deduced that Collins alleged a cause of action for negligence
2 The captions of the redline copy and the clean copy of the proposed first amended complaint reflected Collins as the
51:33:33};t‘;Dr Jeffrey Chase, Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and Schneider Regional Medical Center” as
Petersen v Chase e! a!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER 3});
Page 3 of 16
counsel of record for Collins, and James L Hymes, III , Esq In the December 10, 2015 order the
Court explained
The Court finds that none of the apparent or declared reasons which cause it to
deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint are present in this case Furthermore, the
Court finds that justice requires adding these defendants to the complaint Permitting the
Plaintiff to add these parties by name will allow this matter to be better decrded on its
merits Finally, there is no indication that Defendants will be prejudlced by the Court
permitting Plaintiff to amend its complaint Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff to
amend the complaint to list these defendants by name, and to add additional facts germane
to this matter
Next, the Court turns to other deficiencies in the complaint Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges negligence on the part of various government doctors and other government
employees under the Virgin Islands Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and the Virgin
Islands Tort Claims Act (VITCA) In order to allege claims under these statutes a claimant
must comply with various filing requirements The procedural requirements of the MMA
are set out in 27 V I C § 166i The pre filing requirements ofthe MMA are jurisdictional
and a plaintiff's failure to adhere to these requirements precludes this Court from exercising
jurisdiction over the claims Brady, 55 VI at 815 ("the plain language and historical
purpose of the statute clearly indicate that the Legislature intended the pre filing
requirements of 27 V I C § 166i to limit the authority of courts in this territory in
adjudicating medical malpractice actions ")
Additionally, because Plaintiff alleges a claim for medical malpractice against a
governmental instrumentality, and against government employees of that instrumentality,
the provisions of the VITCA also apply to the facts of this case James St Jules v
Thompson 2015 V I LEXIS 74 at *14 (V I Super Ct June 25 2015) (citing Richardson
v Knud Hansen Mem‘l Hosp , 744 F 2d 1007 (3d Cir 1984)) The pre filing requirements
of the MMA are jurisdictional, and a plaintiff‘s failure to adhere to these requirements
precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the claims Brady, 55 VI at 815
("the plain language and historical purpose of the statute clearly indicate that the
Legislature intended the pre filing requirements of 27 V I C § 166i to limit the authority
of courts in this territory in adjudicating medical malpractice actions ")
There is no indication from the complaint that Plaintiff has complied with the
prefiling requirements of these statutes Instead, the complaint alleges in conclusory
paragraphs that Plaintiff has complied with all requirements of the VITCA and MMA
Compl 1H l3 14 Like those of the MMA, the pre filing requirements of the VITCA are
jurisdictional and may not be waived James St Jules v Thompson, 2015 V I LEXIS 74,
at * 14 16 (V I Super Ct June 25 2015) (further explaining that ' [t]he Third Circuit Court
of Appeals and other Virgin Islands courts, however, have expressly held that a plaintiffs
failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the VITCA precludes a court from
Petersen v Chase e! a!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 V1 SUPER m
Page 4 of 16
exercising subject matter jurisdiction over such claims “) Because of these deficiencies,
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case However, at this stage, the Court
does not find that allowing Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to include allegations
regarding the pre filing requirements of the MMA and VITCA would be futile
(Dec 15 2015 Order pp 2 5)
On January 11, 2016, Collins filed a notice of cempliance with the Virgin Islands Medical
Malpractice Act (hereinafter “VIMMA”) and the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act (hereinafier
“VITCA”) 3 In her January 11, 2016 notice, Collins advised the Court
Plaintiff provided the required notice letter the proposed verified complaint via
certified mail on or about September 13 2013 to the then Commissioner of Health,
Governor of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Attorney General Plaintiff never
received an opinion from the MMARC and afler 90 days as provided by statute Plaintiff
filed her complaint in the Superior Court Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Superior Court
on or about January 30, 2014 In addition Plaintiff provided notice of the amendments via
certified mail to the Governor and Attorney General Therefore, Plaintiff fully complied
with all jurisdictional statutory requirements as stated in the [Court’s December 10, 2015
order] ”
(Jan 11 2016 Notice p 1)
Collins never filed a new proposed first amended complaint as ordered in the Court’s December
10 2015 order 4
3 The following documents were attached to Collins’ January 1 l, 2016 notice as exhibits (i) a copy of a verified letter,
dated September 3, 2013, from Ronald E Russell, Esq on behalf of Collins to “Hon Dance Plaskett, Commissioner,
Depaitment of Health,” regarding “Filing of Proposed Complaint with Medical Malpractice Action Review
Committee,” sent via certified mail and a copy of a verified letter, dated September 3, 2013, fi'orn Ronald E Russell,
Esq on behalf of Collins to “Hon John P deJongh, Governor of the Virgin Islands,” regarding “Notice of Intention
to File Claim,” sent via certified mail (Exhibit A), (ii) a copy ofthe proposed verified complaint, dated September 13,
2013, with certificate of service indicating that it was served on “Medical Malpractice Action Committee” and “Hon
Darice Plaskett, Commissioner, Department of Health” (Exhibit B), and (iii) copies of certified mail receipt for “Hon
Darice Plaskett, Commissioner, Department of Health,” “Medical Malpractice Action Committee,” “Vincent F
Frazer, Esq , Attorney General, Department of Justice,” and “Hon John P deJongh, Governor of the Virgin Islands”
(Exhibit C)
‘ The proposed first amended complaint attached to Collins’ August 13, 2014 motion to amend complaint was never
deemed filed In fact, as noted above, the Court ordered Collins to amend the complaint and cure the deficiencies See
Dec 10 2015 Order
Petersenv Chase e: a!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 81 [A
Page 5 of 16
On May 6, 2016, James L Hymes, III , Esq , counsel for Chase and SRMC, and Dean
Barnes, Esq of the Virgin Islands Department of Justice filed a copy of the stipulation for Dean
Barnes, Esq to substitute as counsel for Chase and SRMC 5 On June 1, 2016, the Court entered an
order whereby the Court granted the stipulation of substitution of counsel for Chase and SRMC
On June 16, 2016, Dean Barnes, Esq , counsel for Chase and SRMC, and Johanna
Harrington, Esq of the Virgin Islands Department of Justice filed a stipulation for Johanna
Harrington, Esq to substitute as counsel for Chase and SRMC On July 5, 2016, the Court entered
an order whereby the Court granted the stipulation of substitution of counsel for Chase and SRMC
On February 5, 2018, Ronald E Russell, Esq filed a petition for appointment of personal
representative whereby Ronald E Russell, Esq advised the Court that Collins died on January 10,
2018 and asked the Court to appoint Corleen Petersen (hereinafter “Petersen”), Collins’ adult
niece, as the personal representative for Collins in this matter On March 7, 2018, Ronald E
Russell, Esq filed a copy of the certificate of death for Collins to supplement his petition for
appointment of personal representatlve No opposition was filed in response
On March 16, 2018 the Court entered an order whereby the Court granted Ronald E
Russell, Esq ’s petition for appointment of personal representative, and Corleen Petersen was
appointed personal representative and substituted as the plaintiff in this matter for Collins
On August 27, 2018, Petersen filed a motion for mediation 6
5 It appears than a duplicate copy ofthe stipulation for Dean Barnes, Esq to substitute as counsel for Chase and SRMC
was filed on May 12 2016
6 Although Petersen was substituted as the plaintiff in this matter for Collins, the caption of the August 27, 2018
motion for mediation did not reflect Petersen as the plaintiff and instead, the caption still reflected Collins as the
plamtiff Moreover, although Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA were substituted in for Dr John Doe and Dr
Jane Doe, the caption ofthe August 27, 2018 motion for mediation did not reflect Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman,
PA as the defendants along with Dr Jeffrey Chase and Schneider Regional Medical Center, instead, the caption
reflected “Dr Jeffrey Chase, Dr John Doe, Dr Jane Doe, and Schneider Regional Medical Center" as the defendants
Petersen v Chase e: a!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 85 \A
Page 6 of 16
On March 12, 2019, Petersen filed a renewed motion for mediation 7
On March 13, 2019, this matter was reassigned from the Honorable Robert A Molloy to
the Honorable Harold W L Willocks
On April 4, 2019, the Court entered an order whereby the Court granted Petersen’s March
12, 2019 renewed motion for mediation and ordered that the parties shall mediate this action within
sixty days from the date of the order
On October 15, 2019, Petersen filed a motion to amend the complaint “to substitute the
Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation (VIHHFC) for Defendant Schnelder
Regional Medical Center ”3 A redline copy of the proposed second amended complaint reflecting
the changes made to the first amended complaint and a clean copy ofthe proposed second amended
complaint were attached to Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint 9
On February 18, 2020, the Court entered an order whereby the Court granted Petersen’s
October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint and deemed the second amended complaint filed as
of October 15 2019
On March 13, 2020, a mediation report was filed by mediator Britain H Bryant, Esq
According to the mediation report, “All Plaintiffs,” “Plaintiff’s trial counsel,” “All Defendants,”
" Although Petersen was substituted as the plaintiff in this matter for Collins, the caption of the March 12, 2019
renewed motion for mediation did not reflect Petersen as the plaintiff and instead, the caption still reflected Collins as
the plaintiff The caption of the March 12, 2019 simply reflected the defendants as “Dr Jefii'ey Chase, et a] ”
' Although Petersen was substituted as the plaintiff in this matter for Collins, the caption of the October IS, 2019
motion to amend complaint did not reflect Petersen as the plaintiff and instead, the caption still reflected Collins as
the plaintiff Moreover, although Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA were substituted in for Dr John Doe and
Dr Jane Doe, the caption of the October 15, 20l9 motion to amend complaint did not reflect Dr Adam Flowers and
Alex Pitman, PA as the defendants along with Dr Jeffrey Chase and Schneider Regional Medical Center, mstead, the
caption reflected “Dr Jeffi'ey Chase, Dr John Doe, Dr Jane Doe, and Schneider Regional Medical Center” as the
defendants
9 The captions of the redline copy and the clean copy of the proposed second amended complaint reflected Collins as
the plaintiff and “Dr Jeffrey Chase and The Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation” as the
defendants and no longer reflected Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA as co defendants
Petersen v Chase e! a!
$$$$$de Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER _8l_lA
Page 7 of 16
and “Defendant’s trial counsel” were present at the March 6, 2020 mediation, and that “Cannot
complete settlement without CMS actual payout figure and local providers”, “Client records lost
due to Hurricane Maria”; and “Work is ongoing ”
On May 20, 2020, Petersen filed a notice of Rule 26 supplement whereby Petersen advised
the Court that “the supplement provides the complete CMS package to Defendant” and that
Petersen “served the mediator with the CMS information ”
On December 8, 2020, Patricia Quinland, Esq of the Virgin Islands Department of Justice
filed a notice of appearance for “Dr Jeffrey Chase, Dr John Doe, Dr Jane Doe, Schneider
Regional Medical Center ”
As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, no responsive pleadings have been
filed in response to Petersen’s second amended complaint
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the file, it has come to the Court’s attentlon that there are several
housekeeping matters that must be addressed They will be discussed in turn
1 Caption
The caption in this matter has not been amended to correctly reflect the true parties
First, although Petersen was appointed personal representative and substituted as the
plaintiff in this matter for Collins per the Court’s March 16, 2018 order, the caption has yet to be
amended to reflect such substitutlon
Second, according to Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint, Petersen
moved “to substitute the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation (VIHHFC) for
Defendant Schneider Regional Medical Center ” However, as noted above, the captions of the
Petersen v Chase e! a!
SX l4 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m
Page 8 of 16
redline copy and the clean copy of the proposed second amended complaint only reflected “Dr
Jeffrey Chase and The Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation” as the
defendants in this matter and no longer reflected Dr Adam Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA as co
defendants It is unclear whether this was intentional meaning, Petersen dismissed Dr Adam
Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA in her second amended complaint and they are no longer parties to
this lawsuit, or this was unintentional meaning, Petersen inadvertently removed Dr Adam
Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA from the caption in her second amended complaint but they are still
parties to this lawsuit In light of the fact that the second amended complaint still referenced Dr
Adam Flowers as “Defendant Dr Adam Flowers” (Compl 1] 12) and Alex Pitman, PA as
“Defendant Alex Pittman” (Compl ‘. 13), the Court concludes that Dr Adam Flowers and Alex
Pitman, PA were unintentionally left off the caption
As such, pursuant to Rule 15 2 of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure,10 the Court will
amend the caption to reflect the true parties (i) “Corleen Petersen, as the personal representative
for Corlina Collins” as the plaintiff in this matter and (ii) “Dr Jeffrey Chase, Dr Adam Flowers,
Alex Pitman, PA, and The Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation” as the
defendants in this matter
2 Subject Matter Jurisdiction
It has not been continued that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
As noted above, Collins never filed a new proposed first amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies as ordered in the Court’s December 10, 2015 order, and instead, filed the January 11,
'° Rule 15 2 of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may amend any process or pleading
fvorI alt? 835153011153 defect therein, or for any variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced at the trial ”
Petersen v Chase et al
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m
Page 9 of 16
2016 notice advising the Court that she was in compliance with the VIMMA“ and the VITCA ‘2
Nevertheless, the original complaint, the proposed first amended complaint, and the second
amended complaint all indicated Collins’ compliance with the VIMMA and the VITCA therein,
albeit in a conclusory fashion without any indication of actual compliance '3
Upon review of Collins’ January 11, 2016 notice and the exhibits attached thereto, the
Court finds that Collins has complied with the pre filing requirements under the VIMMA and the
VITCA As such, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
" According to the VIMMA, the statute of limitations to bring a medical malpractice claim is two years “fi'om the
date of the alleged act, omission or neglect ’ but “a toll of the statute of limitations shall operate for any period during
which the health care provider had actual knowledge of any act, omission or neglect or knowledge of facts which
would reasonably indicate such act, omission or neglect which is the basis for a malpractice claim and failed to disclose
such fact to the patient ” Title 27 V I C § i66d(a) However, “[n]o action against a health care provider may be
commenced in court before the claimant's proposed complaint has been filed with the [Medical Malpractice Action
Review] Committee and the [Medical Malpractice Action Review] Committee has received the expert opinion as
required by this section, provided, that if said opinion is not received by the [Medical Malpractice Action Review]
Committee within ninety days from the date the complaint was filed with the [Medical Malpractice Action Review]
Committee, the claimant may commence his action against the health care provider in court ” Title 27 V I C § 166i(b)
“The proposed complaint shall be deemed filed when a copy is delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to
the Commissioner of Health ” Title 27 V l C § 166i(c)
As noted in the December 15, 2015 order, “[tlhe pre filing requirements ofthe MMA are jurisdictional, and a plaintiff's
failure to adhere to these requirements precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the claims ” (Dec 15,
2015 Order p 4)
'2 According to the VITCA, “[n]o judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have
complied with the provisions of this section applicable to his claim (c) a claim to recover damages for injuries to
property or for personal injury caused by the tort of an officer or employee of the Govemment of the United States
Virgin Islands while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed within ninety days afier the accrual of such
claim unless the claimant shall within such time file a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which
event the claim shall be filed within two years afier the accrual of such claim ” Title 33 V I C § 3409(c)
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has not yet determined if the deadlines in the VITCA are jurisdictional or claims
processing rules See Fleming v Cruz, 62 V I 702, 718 n 13 (VI 2015) (“In this case, we do not decide whether
the VITCA’s claim filing requirements are jurisdictional, and affirm the trial court's decision on this aspect of the
appeal based only upon the clear and unexcused failure of Fleming to comply with plain language of the statutory
requirements We leave a decision on whether the VlTCA's claim filing mandates are jurisdictional for another day ")
Nevertheless, the Court need not address this issue since Collins timely filed her notice of intention and timely
commenced her lawsuit under the VITCA
‘3 In Collins’ original complaint, proposed first amended complaint, and second amended complaint, Collins alleged
13 That Plaintiffcomplied with all requirements of V 1 Code Ann Tit 33 §§ 3408 3416
14 That Plaintiff complied with all requirements of V 1 Code Ann , Tit 27, §§ 166(a m), as amended
(Comp! 11113 14 Proposed PAC 71 I3 14 SAC 1H i3 14)
Petersen v Chase, er a1
$133313. Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 81M
Page 10 of 16
3 Personal Jurisdiction
It is unclear whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants
First, Collins’ August 13, 2014 motion to amend complaint was served only upon James
L Hymes, III, Esq , then counsel of record for Chase and SMRC, and the Court December 10,
2015 order granting Collins’ August 13, 2014 motion to amend complaint was served only upon
Ronald E Russell, Esq and James L Hymes, III, Esq Thus, it is unclear whether Dr Adam
Flowers and Alex Pitman, PA were ever served with the proposed first amended complaint since
they were never served with Collins’ August 13, 2014 motion to amend complaint or the Court
December 10, 2015 order
Second, Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint was served only upon
Dean Barnes, Esq , former counsel of record for Chase and SMRC, and the Court’s February 18,
2020 order granting Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint was served only upon
Ronald E Russell, Esq and Dean Barnes, Esq Thus, it is unclear (i) whether Chase was ever
served with the second amended complaint since Johanna Harrington, Esq , then counsel of record
for Chase and SMRC, was never served with Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend
complaint or the Court’s February 18, 2020 order and (ii) whether Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman,
PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation were ever served with the
second amended complaint since no proofs of service have been filed and there is no indication
that they were served with Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint or the Court’s
February 18 2020 order
Here, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Chase because he has already appeared in
this matter See Estate ofSkepple v Bank ofNova Scam: 69 V I 700 745 46 (V I 2018) ( when
Petersenv Chase era!
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m
Page 11 of 16
a party voluntarily appears, the court obtains jurisdiction over her person, and service is
unnecessary ”) On the other hand, Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands
Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation have not appeared in this matter '4 Thus, if Dr Adam
Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation were
not served with the second amended complaint, then the Court does not have personal jurisdiction
over them See Atrium VI LLC v Atrium Stafling LLC 69 V I 259 275 76 (Super Ct Aug 9
2018) (“Adequate notice, and thus personal jurisdiction, is achieved via valid service ofprocess in
most instances ”), see also Joseph v Daily News Publzshmg Co Inc, 57 V I 566, 580, n 4 (V I
2012) (noting in dicta, in a case which reviewed a granting of summary judgment, that “service of
process unless waived by a general appearance is a prerequisite to the Superior Court
obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant” and then citing, for legal authority for that
assertion, 5 V I C § 115 and its language establishing that a “voluntary appearance of the
defendant shall be equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him ”)
As such, the Court will order Petersen to file proofs of service for Dr Adam Flowers, Alex
Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation for the second
amended complaint
4 Response to the Second Amended Complaint
None of the defendants have filed a response to Petersen’s second amended complaint
'4 The notice of appearance filed by Patricia Quinland, Esq on December 8, 2020 indicated that she appeared as
counsel for “Dr Jeffi~ey Chase, Dr John Doe, Dr Jane Doe, Schneider Regional Medical Center” and no other
defendants Thus, at this time, no notices of appearances have been filed for Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and
the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation and there are no counsel of record for Dr Adam
Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation
Petersen v Chase el al
$3.13va1.: Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER _81_M
Page 12 of 16
a Chase
Although Patricia Quinland, Esq filed a notice of appearance for Chase subsequent to the
Court’s February 18, 2020 order granting Petersen’s motion to amend complaint and deeming the
second amended complaint filed, Chase has not yet filed a response to Petersen’s second amended
complaint Rule 15 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[u]nless a statute
of the Virgin Islands or a court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading
must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 days afier
service of the amended pleading, whichever is later ’ V I R CIV P 15(a)(3) Here, the deadline
for Chase to file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint has long expired ‘5 While
Chase may argue that he was and still is trying to resolve this matter with Petersen by mediation,
the fact is that this matter is still pending before the Court The Court has never entered a stay in
this matter, and until the Court orders so, this matter is still an active case Thus, the issue remains
that Chase has not filed an answer
Under Rule 6 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen an act is required or
allowed to be done by or within a specified period, the court may upon a showing of good cause
or excusable neglect, extend the date for doing that act” and “[t]he court may consider whether the
request to extend time is made before or after the required date, the reason for the movant's delay,
whether the reason for delay was within the reasonable control of the movant, the danger of
prejudice to the parties, the length of the delay; the potential impact of the delay on judicial
proceedings, whether the party seeking the extension has acted in good faith, and all other relevant
'5 The 14 day deadline has long expired even assuming that the clock for Chase to file a responsive pleading did not
start ticking until December 8, 2020 when Patricia Quinland, Esq filed her notice of appearance for Chase, since
Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend and the Court’s February 18, 2020 order were not served on Johanna
Harrington, Esq , then counsel of record for Chase
Petersen v Chase er a!
$413.31.: Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER w
Page 13 of 16
circumstances surrounding the party's failure to meet the originally prescribed deadline ” V I R
Clv P 6(b) “The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has held that ‘excusable neglect’ and ‘good
cause’ are ‘essentially synonyms ”’ Arno v Hess Corp , 71 V I 463, 480 (Super Ct Oct 17, 2019)
(quoting Montgomery v Vzrgm Grand Villas St John Owners' Ass'n, 71 V I 1119, 1127 (V I
2019) (citation omitted» In taking into account all relevant circumstances surrounding Chase’s
failure to file its answer by the prescribed deadline, the Court finds that there is good cause for a
discretionary extension to wit, (i) the reason for Chase’s delay in filing his answer is presumably
because Chase was and still is trying to resolve this matter with Petersen by mediation and Petersen
never took any actions against Chase for his failure to file its answer by the prescribed deadline,
(ii) there is no indication that by extending the time for Chase to file his answer presents any danger
of prejudice to the other parties in fact, as noted above, it is unclear whether the other defendants
in this matter have been served and if they were served, they have not filed their answers to the
second amended complaint, and (iii) although it has been almost 18 months since the Court entered
the order granting Petersen’s October 15, 2019 motion to amend complaint, the potential impact
of the delay on the judicial proceedings is minimal and the length of the delay is a nonissue
because, as the Court just noted, it is unclear whether the other defendants in this matter have been
served and ifthey were served, they have not filed their answers to the second amended complaint
As such, the Court will grant Chase a discretionary extension of time for Chase to file his
answer to the second amended complaint '6
"5 While the parties may question the necessity for Chase to file an answer given that he was and still is trying to
resolve this matter with Petersen by mediation, the Court finds that it is legally and procedurally sound in this instance
to have Chase file an answer Otherwise, the Court would be setting a bad precedent that may be viewed as an
invitation to litigants to eirciunvent the applicable rules of this Court such as filing a timely responsive pleading
and effectively obliterate those rules
Pelersenv Chase er a1
33.11.1531"? Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER XL”
Page 14 of 16
b Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Facilities Corporation
As noted above, Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Facilities Corporation have not filed their respective responses to Petersen’s second
amended complaint, but it is unclear whether they were ever served Thus, the Court will address
this issue, if necessary, after Petersen files proofs of service as ordered
5 Mediation
It is unclear which defendant(s) were and still are trying to resolve this matter with Petersen
by mediation
While the mediation report filed on March 13, 2020 indicated that “All Plaintiffs,”
“Plaintiff’s trial counsel,” “All Defendants,” and “Defendant’s trial counsel” were present, there
is no indication of the names of the defendants and counsel that were present
As such, the Court will order Petersen to file a notice advising the Court of the names of
the defendants and defense counsel present at the March 6, 2020 mediation and the status of the
mediation since Petersen “served the mediator with the CMS information” on May 20, 2020
6 Going Forward
At this juncture, there is no arguing that this case is a procedural mess The Court must
express its concern with the parties’ blatant disregard of the Court’s orders and the applicable rules
of this Court and cautions that, moving forward, the Court expects the parties to comply with the
Court’s orders and all the applicable mics ofthis Court or otherwise be sanctioned It is the Court’s
wish, with the patties’ help, to keep the record of this 2014 matter as orderly and as clear as
possible
Petersen v Chase e! a!
giggilfaEXdilnf Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m
Page l5 of 16
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will amend the caption, order Petersen to file proofs of
service for Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health
Facilities Corporation for the second amended complaint, grant Chase a discretionary extension of
time to file his answer to the second amended complaint, and order Petersen to file notice advising
the Court the names of the defendant(s) and defense counsel present at the March 6, 2020
mediation and the status of the mediation Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the caption in this matter shall be amended to reflect the true parties (i)
“Corleen Petersen, as the personal representative for Corlina Collins” as the plaintiff in this matter
and (ii) “Dr Jeffrey Chase, Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and the Virgin Islands Hospitals
and Health Facilities Corporation” as the defendants in this matter It is further
ORDERED that, within fifteen (15) days from the entry of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order, Petersen shall file (i) proofs of service for Dr Adam Flowers, Alex Pitman, PA, and
the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation for the second amended complaint
and (ii) a notice advising the Court the names of the defendant(s) and defense counsel present at
the March 6, 2020 mediation and the status of the mediation since Petersen “served the mediator
with the CMS information” on May 20, 2020 It is further
ORDERED that a discretionary extension oftime for Chase to file his answer to the second
amended complaint is GRANTED and Chase shall file his answer within fifteen (15) days from
the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
Petersen v Chase et a1
SX 14 CV 015
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 8! M
Page 16 of 16
DONE and so ORDERED this 9““ day of Qua 2021
ATTEST
Tamara Charles
WM HARO D W L WILLOCKS
Cler 6 Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
By 2M/vé
cart Clerk Supemser 3'7“
Dated M517: