179 Conn. App. 485
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Kate L. Doyle sued Dr. Brandon Kang for dental malpractice arising from a 2011 implant that allegedly was improperly angled and later failed; Kang performed subsequent bone grafting.
- Plaintiff filed suit Aug. 19, 2015, and attached an attorney certificate of reasonable inquiry plus an opinion letter from Andrew Mogelof, a general dentist.
- Kang moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a(a), arguing the opinion letter was insufficient because Kang is trained/experienced in oral and maxillofacial surgery and § 52-184c(c) requires an opinion from a board-certified specialist in that same specialty.
- Kang submitted affidavits asserting he completed a four-year oral and maxillofacial surgery residency and treated the plaintiff as an oral surgeon; Mogelof admitted he was not trained or board certified in that specialty.
- The trial court found the treatment fell within oral and maxillofacial surgery, Mogelof was not a similar health care provider under § 52-184c(c), and granted dismissal; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opinion letter from a general dentist satisfied § 52-190a(a) when defendant was trained/experienced in oral and maxillofacial surgery | Mogelof’s expertise and the department website showing only general dentistry sufficed; plaintiff made reasonable inquiry | Because Kang was trained/experienced (and held himself out) as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, § 52-184c(c) required an opinion from a board-certified specialist in that specialty | Court held Mogelof was not a similar health care provider; opinion letter legally insufficient; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff could rely solely on the Dept. of Public Health website for defendant’s credentials | Plaintiff argued no authentic public record showed Kang’s specialty beyond the website, so she reasonably relied on it | Defendant argued website is not the exclusive means and plaintiff must investigate credentials by other reasonable methods | Court rejected sole reliance on the website; plaintiff must conduct reasonable inquiry using other available methods |
| Whether plaintiff lacked means to discover Kang’s specialty and thus should be excused from strict compliance | Plaintiff claimed she could not be expected to match credentials she could not discover | Defendant pointed out other means (ask provider, bill of discovery, file to amend before statute of limitations) and noted medical records referenced an "oral surgeon" | Court found plaintiff had means to discover/verify specialty and was put on notice by medical-record notations; failure was not excused |
| Whether dismissal was mandatory for failure to attach a compliant opinion letter | Plaintiff contended dismissal harsh given circumstances | Defendant relied on statutory mandatory dismissal for noncompliant opinion letters | Court reiterated dismissal is mandatory under § 52-190a(c) and precedent; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Langdon, 161 Conn. App. 497 (Conn. App. 2015) (discusses requirements for an opinion letter and reliance on DPH profile)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2011) (failure to file compliant opinion letter mandates dismissal)
- Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., 301 Conn. 388 (Conn. 2011) (noncompliant opinion letter defeats personal jurisdiction)
- Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth & Women’s Center, 314 Conn. 709 (Conn. 2014) (explains § 52-184c triggers and definition of similar health care provider)
- New England Road, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 308 Conn. 180 (Conn. 2013) (contrasts good-faith efforts with complete noncompliance)
- Journal Publishing Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 261 Conn. 673 (Conn. 2002) (describes bill of discovery as a means to obtain evidence)