Charlotte Hungerford Hospital v. Creed
144 Conn. App. 100
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Charlotte Hungerford Hospital sued Creed and Newman & Creed, LLC, and William Plante, Sr. (as administrator) for vexatious litigation under § 52-568.
- Creed had filed two medical malpractice actions against the hospital arising from the April 30, 2004 suicide of the decedent.
- The hospital argued Creed lacked probable cause to bring both actions due to failure to attach a proper opinion letter under § 52-190a (a).
- The first action was dismissed for failure to attach a required opinion letter; the suit proceeded to a bifurcated trial on an accidental failure of suit claim in the second action.
- The Supreme Court in Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital held that a matter-of-form extension under § 52-592 (a) requires lack of egregious conduct and that the second action could be time-barred.
- The trial court and later appellate rulings addressed collateral estoppel, privity, and the proper standard for probable cause under Falls Church II versus Falls Church I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs probable cause in vexatious litigation against an attorney? | Hospital argues Falls Church I standard; Creed lacks probable cause. | Creed contends Falls Church II standard applies; factual record supports probable cause. | Falls Church II standard applies; however, disposition on second issue follows. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar Creed from challenging probable cause for the second action? | Judge Pickard’s finding of blatant conduct binds Creed for the second action. | Creed argues no full and fair litigation of probable cause occurred; privity issues arise. | Creed is collaterally estopped from contesting probable cause for the second action. |
| Does collateral estoppel apply to Creed regarding the first action's probable cause? | Yes, Creed bound by prior finding of blatant conduct. | No, the finding did not necessarily determine probable cause for the first action. | Not collaterally estopped as to the first action; Creed may challenge probable cause there. |
| Did Creed have probable cause to bring the second action given the first action’s dismissal for form? | The dismissal was egregious conduct; no probable cause for second action impossible. | Second action could be plausible under matter of form; depends on forms and formality. | Probable cause for the second action not established; court reverses on this aspect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (2007) (adopts traditional civil probable cause standard for vexatious suits against attorneys (Falls Church II))
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 89 Conn. App. 459 (2005) (initial, restrictive standard for probable cause (Falls Church I))
- Hebrew Home & Hospital, Inc. v. Brewer, 92 Conn. App. 762 (2005) (applies the same restrictive standard to attorneys in vexatious suits)
- Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 300 Conn. 33 (2011) (discusses § 52-592 (a) matter of form and lack of diligence in obtaining opinion letter)
- Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338 (2013) (confirms standard for failure to file good faith certificate and opinion letters under § 52-190a (a))
- Rosario v. Hasak, 50 Conn. App. 632 (1998) (treats egregious conduct as precluding access to matter of form under § 52-592)
- Pepitone v. Serman, 69 Conn. App. 614 (2002) (discusses limits of accidental failure of suit relief under § 52-592)
- Coyle Crete, LLC v. Nevins, 137 Conn. App. 540 (2012) (privity analysis for collateral estoppel in attorney-related actions)
- Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 538 (2008) (attorney in privity with client for collateral estoppel when control of litigation exists)
- Embalmers’ Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 103 Conn. App. 20 (2007) (defines probable cause standard in vexatious litigation context)
- Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn. App. 262 (2009) (recognizes plenary review of probable cause questions on appeal)