179 Conn. App. 196
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Dr. Jose Estela originally sued Bristol Hospital (Estela I) for tortious interference and related claims; Estela I was terminated by nonsuit after repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery deadlines.
- Estela moved to open the nonsuit under § 52-212(a); state court denied the motion and appellate recourse was moot as to that relief.
- Estela filed a new, essentially identical action relying on the "accidental failure of suit" savings statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592(a), to avoid statutes of limitation bars.
- Bristol moved for summary judgment on limitations grounds and then moved to bifurcate, seeking an evidentiary hearing on whether § 52-592(a) applied (i.e., whether the prior nonsuit was "a matter of form").
- After an evidentiary hearing (plaintiff’s counsel testifying about alleged reliance on defense counsel and IRS delays), the trial court found Estela I was dismissed for "serious disciplinary reasons," not mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect, and held § 52-592(a) did not save the new suit.
- Estela appealed, arguing waiver, misapplied standard (invoking Ruddock), factual error in finding noncompliance was not excusable, and that § 52-592(a) applies to any nonsuit; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived the right to challenge § 52-592(a) by not raising it earlier | Estela: Bristol waived/estopped from contesting § 52-592(a) applicability | Bristol: Limitations were raised; bifurcation was proper to decide dispositive § 52-592(a) issue | No waiver; court properly bifurcated and addressed § 52-592(a) first |
| Proper legal standard to determine § 52-592(a) applicability | Estela: Trial court applied higher § 52-212 standard instead of Ruddock’s "mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect" test | Bristol: Court correctly reviewed prior court’s § 52-212 findings but applied Ruddock standard to § 52-592(a) | Court applied the correct Ruddock standard; consideration of prior § 52-212 findings was appropriate |
| Whether factual record shows nonsuit was due to mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect | Estela: Noncompliance was excusable (reliance on defense counsel, IRS delays, scheduling) | Bristol: Pattern of delay, repeated missed deadlines, failure to seek extensions shows disciplinary noncompliance | Findings not clearly erroneous; dismissal was for serious disciplinary reasons, not excusable neglect |
| Whether § 52-592(a) applies to any judgment of nonsuit | Estela (newly raised): statute’s plain language covers all nonsuits | Bristol: Precedent limits § 52-592(a); disciplinary nonsuits may bar savings relief depending on facts | Claim unpreserved and contrary to precedent; § 52-592(a) does not automatically apply to every nonsuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 (Conn. 1998) (articulates the "matter of form" test for § 52-592(a): prior failure must be due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect)
- Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 300 Conn. 33 (Conn. 2011) (approves bifurcating § 52-592(a) issue to avoid unnecessary full trial when statute’s applicability is dispositive)
- Tellar v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 114 Conn. App. 244 (Conn. App. 2009) (explains continuum between excusable failures and disciplinary dismissals under § 52-592(a))
- Skinner v. Doelger, 99 Conn. App. 540 (Conn. App. 2007) (distinguishes purposes and standards of §§ 52-592 and 52-212 and permits reliance on prior court findings when assessing § 52-592(a) applicability)