Kissel v. Center for Women's Health, P.C., AC42469, AC42493, AC42505

Background

On April 22, 2010 the plaintiff suffered severe burns to her left foot/toes from a heat lamp used during an acupuncture session with Reed Wang at the Center for Women’s Health.
Plaintiff sued Wang and the Center (medical malpractice) and later sued Health Body World Supply, Inc. (WABBO), the lamp distributor (product liability).
The original 2012 malpractice complaint included counsel’s good-faith certificate but did not attach the statutorily required written opinion letter from a "similar health care provider" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑190a.
Plaintiff sought to amend in June 2012 to attach an opinion letter she says existed when suit was filed; the trial court allowed the amendment, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the case went to jury in 2017.
Jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000,000 on both malpractice and product‑liability theories; on appeal the court reversed as to the malpractice counts (Wang and the Center) for failure to cure the § 52‑190a defect within the limitations period, and affirmed as to the product‑liability claim against WABBO.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with § 52‑190a (attachment of similar‑provider opinion)	Kissel: the opinion letter existed when suit commenced and the trial court has discretion to permit belated amendment to attach it.	Wang/Center: failure to attach the opinion letter is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal; any cure had to be initiated before the limitations period expired (per Peters).	Reversed trial court: dismissal required — plaintiff did not commence corrective action before the two‑year limitations period elapsed, so court lacked personal jurisdiction.
Waiver of statute‑of‑limitations defense	Kissel: defendants waived the statute‑of‑limitations / § 52‑190a timing defense by not raising it earlier.	Wang/Center: timely raised via motions to reargue when controlling Appellate authority issued; no waiver.	Held for defendants: no waiver; defendants permissibly relied on intervening appellate authority to press the timeliness argument.
Whether a jury verdict cures § 52‑190a defect or satisfies its purpose	Kissel: the jury verdict on the merits and the statute’s purpose (prevent frivolous suits) justify denying dismissal and preserving the verdict.	Defendants: statutory text mandates dismissal for noncompliance; a merits verdict does not cure a jurisdictional/pleading defect.	Held for defendants: verdict does not insulate the defective § 52‑190a pleading from appellate review; dismissal remains mandatory where requirements weren’t met.
Product‑liability causation as to WABBO (directed verdict / set aside)	Kissel: presented alternative, legally sufficient theories of causation (e.g., lack of safety guard, locking mechanism, warnings or manual) — any one could be a substantial factor.	WABBO: plaintiff failed to prove how/why the lamp contacted her foot; evidence was speculative.	Held for plaintiff re product claim: sufficient evidence supported alternative causation theories; WABBO failed to attack all specifications, so the denial of directed verdict and set‑aside was proper.

Key Cases Cited

Peters v. United Community & Family Services, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 688 (Conn. App. 2018) (held corrective action to cure a defective § 52‑190a opinion must be initiated before the statute of limitations expires)
Gonzales v. Langdon, 161 Conn. App. 497 (Conn. App. 2015) (permitted curing legally insufficient opinion letters by amendment if done within the limitations period)
Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 3 (Conn. App. 2018) (reiterated that curing defective opinion letters must occur before limitations runs)
Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569 (Conn. App. 2009) (noted trial court discretion to permit amendment where opinion letter pre‑existed suit; language later treated as non‑controlling by subsequent cases)
Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2011) (explains § 52‑190a purpose and that failure to file compliant opinion letter is grounds for dismissal)
Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., 301 Conn. 388 (Conn. 2011) (failure to attach § 52‑190a opinion implicates personal jurisdiction; motion to dismiss is proper vehicle)
Torres v. Carrese, 149 Conn. App. 596 (Conn. App. 2014) (discusses motions to reargue based on intervening controlling authority and retroactive application)
Santorso v. Bristol Hosp., 308 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2013) (addresses mandatory dismissal for failure to comply with § 52‑190a)