158 Conn.App. 66
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- May 21, 2008 Kruger performed cervical laminectomy; spinal cord contusion left plaintiff quadriparetic.
- Plaintiff filed complaint October 23, 2009 alleging negligent surgery and res ipsa loquitur; counts include loss of consortium.
- January 12, 2010 defendants moved to revise pleadings; trial court sustained objection.
- October 24, 2011 plaintiff disclosed neurosurgeon Macon, who opined retractor caused injury (retractor theory).
- April 27, 2012 plaintiff sought leave to amend to add retractor theory; August 21, 2015 summary judgment granted against original counts; plaintiff appeals.
- Court reverses summary judgment, finds amended allegations relate back to original pleadings under the relation back doctrine.
- Judge Aurigemma previously denied amendment; discovery and expert disclosures in play; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint relates back to original under §52-584 | Amendments elaborate core negligence theory; relate back | Amendments present new theory requiring new facts | Yes, amendments relate back |
| Whether the original complaint gave fair notice of the retractor theory | Original pleadings broad enough to encompass negligent operation | Original pleadings too narrow to cover retractor theory | Yes, fair notice satisfied |
| Whether retractor theory constitutes a new cause of action | Amendment amplifies existing theory of negligent operation | Amendment creates a new delict/claim | Not a new cause of action; relates back to existing theory |
| Standard of review for relation back on appeal | De novo review should apply | Potential abuse of discretion | De novo review applied pending Supreme Court clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (2010) (relates back when alternate theory supported by original facts; de novo review on relation back)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (2012) (relates back when amendments amplify, not contradict, original theory)
- Dimmock v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (2008) (new allegations that replace or contradict original claims do not relate back)
- Miller v. Fishman, 102 Conn. App. 286 (2007) (amendments may amplify without changing core action if same facts)
- Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (2010) (guidance on relation back; interplay with existing allegations)