Why was the doctor from State B not considered a required party to the suit brought against him?

The reasoning behind why the doctor from State B was not considered a required party to the suit primarily hinges on the concept of necessary or indispensable parties in civil procedure. A party is deemed necessary if their involvement is essential for a complete and fair resolution of the dispute. If their absence would preclude complete relief among the existing parties or would impede their ability to protect their interest, then they are considered required.

In this scenario, the determination that the doctor’s presence was not essential for a complete adjudication indicates that the existing parties in the lawsuit could still effectively resolve the case without him. For instance, if the case could proceed based solely on the actions of other parties, the court could render a judgment that does not necessitate the doctor's participation. This highlights the principle that for a party to be essential, their contribution to the resolution of the case must be indispensable—meaning that the case could not be settled thoroughly without them.

In contrast, it is not sufficient merely for a party to be involved in some aspect of the facts or issues for them to be deemed required. It could be that their connection to the case, while relevant, does not directly affect the resolution of the legal claims being pursued. In this context, presence of the doctor may not enhance