Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C.
157 A.3d 70
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Donald Briere sued orthopedic surgeon David Kruger and his practice after C3–C5 spinal cord damage during a May 21, 2008 surgery, alleging negligence (including improper skull clamp use) and res ipsa loquitur; wife asserted derivative loss-of-consortium claims.
- Complaint filed within limitations; plaintiff obtained an automatic extension to August 19, 2010; defendants requested a more detailed statement of the surgical-performance allegation, which plaintiff successfully resisted pre-limitations.
- After discovery, plaintiff disclosed an expert (Dr. Macon) who would testify that improper placement of a retractor blade (not the skull clamp) caused the injury; plaintiff then sought to amend the complaint to replace skull-clamp allegations with the retractor theory after the statute of limitations had run.
- Trial court denied leave to amend, construing the original pleadings as limited to skull-clamp negligence, excluded Macon’s testimony, and granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of an expert on the skull-clamp theory.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the amended retractor allegations related back to the original claim that Kruger negligently planned/performed the surgery; the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended retractor-blade allegations relate back to the original complaint under the relation-back doctrine | Briere: original complaint fairly alleged negligent planning/ performance of the surgery and res ipsa locquitur put defendants on notice the injury was caused by an instrumentality in the surgeon’s control; retractor theory is an alternative way of pleading the same cause of action | Defs: original pleading was fact-specific and limited to skull-clamp negligence; the retractor theory asserts a different factual basis and is time‑barred | Court: amendment related back—the original cause of action was negligent performance of surgery (improper use of instruments); retractor allegations amplified that cause, not a new one |
| Whether pleadings should be read narrowly (hypertechnical) or broadly for relation-back purposes | Briere: in medical malpractice plaintiffs may learn the precise theory only after discovery; pleadings should be construed broadly to give effect to the plaintiff’s general theory | Defs: Connecticut’s fact‑pleading requires particulars; allowing broad amendments post‑limitations would prejudice defendants and reward vague pleading | Court: adopt a case‑by‑case approach—pleadings construed reasonably and realistically; neither hypertechnical nor unboundedly general; relation‑back depends on whether new allegations fall within original transaction/occurrence |
| Role of res ipsa locquitur and discovery in providing notice | Briere: res ipsa allegation and discovery (expert disclosure) supplied fair notice of instrumentality theory | Defs: discovery cannot substitute for pleading; original certificate of good faith focused on skull clamp | Court: res ipsa, read with the negligence count as a whole, provided additional notice that claim concerned improper use of instruments; discovery disclosures alone cannot cure an untimely unpled claim, but here pleading sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (de novo review applies to relation‑back determinations)
- Alswanger v. Smego, 257 Conn. 58 (relation‑back doctrine; fair notice requirement)
- Finkle v. Carroll, 315 Conn. 821 (relation‑back principles and amplification of original allegations)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (allowing alternative negligence theories to relate back)
- Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (new allegations that amplify original theory may relate back)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (amendments that present different factual circumstances do not relate back)
- Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (pleadings construed broadly and realistically)
- Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242 (relation‑back serves statute‑of‑limitations notice objectives)
- Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., 259 Conn. 114 (different defect theories in same transaction can relate back)
- Keenan v. Yale New Haven Hospital, 167 Conn. 284 (lack of informed consent does not relate back to negligence in performance)
- Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 (purpose and scope of similar‑health‑care‑provider certification in malpractice pleadings)