Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc.
12 A.3d 865
| Conn. | 2011Background
- The administrator of the decedent sued the emergency physician and hospital for medical malpractice arising from treatment in 2006; decedent died in 2007.
- Plaintiff attached a good faith certificate and an opinion letter from a physician who was not an emergency medicine board-certified specialist.
- Defendant moved to dismiss counts 1 and 2 under § 52-190a(c) for failure to comply with § 52-190a(a).
- Appellate Court held the opinion letter must be authored by a similar health care provider defined in § 52-184c(c) for specialists, given the defendant’s emergency medicine specialty.
- Connecticut Supreme Court held that for specialists, the author of § 52-190a(a) opinion letter must be a similar health care provider defined by § 52-184c(c).
- The court upheld dismissal under § 52-190a(c) and declined to review a separation of powers challenge due to nonpreservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a specialist's § 52-190a(a) opinion letter be authored by a similar health care provider under § 52-184c(c)? | Bennett argues § 52-190a(a) ambiguous; a nonsimilar expert could author letters. | Lohse argues letter must be from a similar health care provider under § 52-184c(c). | Author must be a similar health care provider. |
| Does § 52-190a(a) permit an otherwise qualified expert under § 52-184c(d) to author the opinion letter? | Nonsimilar experts could author letters if otherwise qualified. | Only similar health care providers may author letters for specialists. | Letters must be from a similar health care provider for specialists. |
| Does § 52-190a(c) require dismissal when the letter is not authored by a similar provider? | Dismissal may be avoided or treated as amendable under strike procedures. | Noncompliant letters justify dismissal under § 52-190a(c). | Dismissal is required under § 52-190a(c) for noncompliance. |
| Is the § 52-190a framework constitutionally severing powers or otherwise reviewable on separation of powers grounds? | § 52-190a impinges on judicial discretion and separation of powers. | Statute serves to deter frivolous suits and does not improperly constrain courts. | Court declined to address due to lack of preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeConche v. Elligers, 215 Conn. 701 (1990) (good faith certificate not jurisdictional; pleading necessity; amendability)
- Grondin v. Curi, 262 Conn. 637 (2003) (definition of similar health care provider; trial court discretion)
- Dias v. Grady, 292 Conn. 350 (2009) (legislative history of § 52-190a; purpose to deter frivolous suits)
- Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn.App. 569 (2009) (dismissal as remedy under § 52-190a(c); amendment considerations)
- Rios v. CCMC Corp., 106 Conn.App. 810 (2008) (motions to dismiss; not limited to jurisdictional challenges)
- Williams v. Hartford Hospital, 122 Conn.App. 597 (2010) (opinion letters from different specialists; compliance with § 52-190a(a))