346 Conn. 80
Conn.2023Background
- Carpenter sued dentist Bradley Daar and his practice for malpractice after a 2015 root canal allegedly caused a serious infection.
- Complaint included a good faith certificate and an opinion letter from Dr. Charles Solomon, an endodontist, and quoted Daar’s practice website saying he had completed “hundreds of hours of training in endodontics.”
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a(c), attaching Daar’s affidavit stating he is a general dentist and not an endodontic specialist; they argued Solomon was not a “similar health care provider.”
- Plaintiff did not amend the complaint but filed Solomon’s supplemental affidavit elaborating his credentials and teaching that, he said, qualified him to be a similar provider; trial court granted dismissal and Appellate Court affirmed, relying on Morgan.
- Supreme Court granted certification, concluded Morgan was wrongly decided on the jurisdiction point, held the § 52-190a inquiry is limited to the complaint and attached opinion letter, and reversed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the § 52-190a opinion letter implicate personal jurisdiction? | Morgan was wrong; opinion letter is a prelitigation gatekeeping device, not process. | Morgan controls; defect in letter affects personal jurisdiction and can be waived if not timely raised. | Overruled Morgan on this point: opinion letter does not implicate personal jurisdiction; inquiry is nonjurisdictional. |
| May a plaintiff cure a defective opinion letter via a postfiling supplemental affidavit instead of amending complaint? | Supplemental affidavit may supplement the attached letter and cure insufficiency. | Allowing supplementation circumvents procedural limits and statute of limitations; amendment should be required. | Court: § 52-190a inquiry is governed by complaint and attached letter; courts may permit amendment or supplementation of a challenged letter; Conboy-style jurisdictional fact-finding is not applicable. |
| Was Solomon (endodontist) a “similar health care provider” to Daar (alleged endodontic specialist) under § 52-184c? | Broad, realistic reading of complaint + opinion letter shows Daar held himself out as an endodontics practitioner, and Solomon’s credentials made him similar. | Daar’s affidavit shows he is a general dentist; website statements are promotional and not proof of specialty; Solomon lacked five years of general-dentistry teaching/practice for nonspecialist match. | Held Solomon was a similar health care provider under a broad, realistic reading of the complaint and letter; dismissal improper. |
| Are the Conboy/Practice Book rules for jurisdictional fact‑finding applicable to § 52-190a motions to dismiss? | No; those rules govern jurisdictional facts and are not applicable to statutory § 52-190a gatekeeping. | Those rules allow courts to consider affidavits to decide threshold issues and to resolve disputes at dismissal stage. | Held Conboy procedures are inapplicable; the § 52-190a inquiry is limited to the complaint and attached letter; courts nonetheless may allow amendment/supplementation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., 301 Conn. 388 (2011) (held opinion letter implicated personal jurisdiction; partially overruled)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (author of opinion letter must be a similar health care provider as defined by § 52-184c)
- LeConche v. Elligers, 215 Conn. 701 (1990) (good faith certificate is not subject‑matter jurisdictional)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (articulated framework for deciding jurisdictional issues on motions to dismiss)
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (1983) (due‑process minimum contacts inquiries may require evidentiary hearing)
- Wilkins v. Conn. Childbirth & Women’s Ctr., 314 Conn. 709 (2014) (§ 52-190a intended to prevent frivolous malpractice suits without defeating meritorious claims)
- Kissel v. Ctr. for Women’s Health, P.C., 205 Conn. App. 394 (2021) (App. Ct. applying Morgan-era rules to require strict timing and curative procedures for defective or missing opinion letters)