Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C., SC19576

Plaintiff Donald Briere (and co‑plaintiff Nancy Briere) sought a late amendment to his medical‑malpractice complaint to substitute a negligence theory based on the use of a retractor blade for an earlier theory based on a skull clamp used during surgery.
The trial court denied the motion to amend; the Appellate Court held the denial improper and allowed the amendment as relating back to the original complaint.
The Connecticut Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment permitting relation back under the applicable doctrine.
Justice Robinson concurred, agreeing with the result but expressing reluctance about late‑stage amendments that may unfairly change the theory of the case to defendants’ prejudice.
The concurrence focuses on the proper standard of appellate review for relation‑back determinations, arguing that some aspects of the inquiry implicate discretionary, fairness‑based considerations warranting abuse‑of‑discretion review rather than purely de novo review.
Robinson notes that in this particular case the defendants did not press arguments about prejudice, timing, or the nature of proof, so the relation‑back issue here was appropriately treated as a question of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed amendment (retractor theory) "relates back" to original pleading so as to avoid the statute of limitations	Briere: new allegations arise from the same transaction/occurrence pleaded originally and thus relate back	Defendants: proposed amendment asserts a different theory and evidence, prejudicing defendants; does not relate back	Court: amendment related back; Appellate Court and Supreme Court affirmed allowing amendment
Proper standard of appellate review for relation‑back determinations	Briere: parties agreed de novo review applies; relation‑back mostly a pleading‑interpretation question	Defendants: urged de novo but warned of conflicting precedent favoring abuse of discretion in some contexts	Held: concurrence (Robinson, J.) contends that interpretation questions are de novo, but fairness/evidence‑based aspects implicate trial discretion and should be reviewed for abuse of discretion; in this case no prejudice issue was raised, so plenary review was appropriate

Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (Conn. 2008) (discusses relation‑back inquiry and tension between de novo and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2010) (dictum stating de novo review applies to relation‑back questions)
Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (Conn. 1991) (relation‑back and pleading interpretation principles)
Alswanger v. Smego, 257 Conn. 58 (Conn. 2001) (relation‑back doctrine application)
Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (Second Circuit: de novo review for relation‑back but distinguishes fairness‑based amendments that warrant deferential review)
Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Development Corp., 266 Conn. 572 (Conn. 2003) (factors courts consider when deciding motions to amend: delay, fairness, prejudice, negligence)