182 Conn. App. 445
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Decedent admitted to Gaylord Hospital for medical care and rehabilitation after hip replacement performed elsewhere; developed a postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma and related complications.
- Plaintiffs (coexecutors) sued physicians (board certified in internal medicine) and hospital for alleged malpractice in diagnosis/treatment of the postoperative condition.
- Plaintiffs appended to their original complaint an opinion letter under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a from Dr. David Mayer, a general surgeon board certified in surgery (not internal medicine).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits showing the physicians were board certified in internal medicine and that the hospital had no surgeons on staff.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (alleging physicians are internists and that the condition fell within surgery) but did not allege expressly that defendants acted outside their specialty nor attach a new opinion letter from an internist.
- Trial court granted dismissal: held Mayer was not a "similar health care provider" under § 52-184c(c) and the complaint lacked an allegation that defendants treated or diagnosed a condition outside their specialty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly considered defendants' affidavits on motion to dismiss | Court must accept complaint allegations as true; no factual issues outside the record | Affidavits supply undisputed facts about board certification and specialty; Practice Book allows supporting affidavits | Court properly considered affidavits; they supplemented the complaint and supported dismissal |
| Whether Mayer's surgeon opinion letter satisfied § 52-190a (similar health care provider requirement) | Mayer's opinion suffices because the condition was surgical in nature | § 52-184c(c) requires an opinion from a provider trained and board certified in the defendant's specialty (internal medicine) unless defendants acted outside their specialty | Held Mayer was not a similar provider because defendants are internists; opinion letter did not comply with § 52-190a |
| Whether exception in § 52-184c(c) applies when plaintiffs allege the condition is within surgery (so defendants acted outside internal medicine) | Allegation that the condition was within the specialty of surgery means defendants acted outside internal medicine, so an opinion from a surgeon is adequate | Plaintiffs did not expressly allege defendants undertook treatment/diagnosis outside their specialty; broad specialties overlap and such an inference is insufficient | Exception does not apply; plaintiffs failed to allege defendants acted outside their specialty and thus needed an internist opinion |
| Whether dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was required | Dismissal improper because plaintiffs satisfied statutory requirements as a surgical specialist opined on a surgical complication | Without an appropriate opinion letter or an allegation that defendants acted outside their specialty, dismissal is proper | Dismissal affirmed for lack of a compliant § 52-190a opinion and absence of alleged out-of-specialty treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (opinion-letter and similar-provider rules; court may consider affidavits showing specialty)
- Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516 (2014) (trial court may consider undisputed affidavit facts supplementing complaint on jurisdictional motion)
- Torres v. Carrese, 149 Conn. App. 596 (2014) (statutory definitions of similar health care provider and § 52-190a interaction)
- Lohnes v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 132 Conn. App. 68 (2011) (absence of express allegation that defendant acted outside specialty defeats exception)
- Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth & Women’s Ctr., 314 Conn. 709 (2014) (institutional similar-provider status determined by specialty of alleged agent)
- Doyle v. Aspen Dental of Southern CT, PC, 179 Conn. App. 485 (2018) (standards of review for jurisdictional questions and motions to dismiss)