199 Conn.App. 265
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Decedent was admitted to Gaylord Hospital after a hip replacement performed elsewhere and developed a retroperitoneal hematoma and related complications while under care there.
- Treating physicians (Moe Kyaw, Madhuri Gadiyaram, Eileen Ramos) were board‑certified in internal medicine; plaintiffs alleged failures to timely diagnose, image, consult a surgeon, and transfer the decedent.
- Plaintiffs attached an expert opinion letter by David A. Mayer, a board‑certified general surgeon, asserting negligence in diagnosing/treating the retroperitoneal bleed.
- In a prior action (Labissoiniere I), the trial and appellate courts dismissed because Mayer (a surgeon) was not a "similar health care provider" to internists under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑184c, and thus the § 52‑190a certification was deficient.
- Plaintiffs refiled, adding conclusory allegations that the internists acted outside their specialty (i.e., the care required surgical expertise); defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under § 52‑190a and Sound Physicians argued the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was not an entity at the time of treatment.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the appellate court affirmed, but rejected the argument that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking as to Sound Physicians (because it was a legal entity when sued).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surgeon's opinion satisfied § 52‑190a because defendants were allegedly acting outside their specialty | Labissoniere: the internists acted outside internal medicine (their care fell within surgery), so a surgeon is a "similar health care provider" under § 52‑184c(c) | Defendants: complaint and expert show physicians acted as internists; Mayer (a surgeon) is not a similar provider for internists; § 52‑190a not satisfied | Held: plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing physicians acted outside internal medicine; surgeon’s opinion was not from a similar provider and § 52‑190a was not met; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs' added conclusory allegation cured the prior jurisdictional defect | Labissoniere: the new allegation that defendants acted as surgeons should be accepted as true and cure the defect | Defendants: the allegation is conclusory and lacks factual support; essential factual allegations cannot be supplied by assertion alone | Held: conclusory claim insufficient; courts will not infer from complaint that internists performed surgical care; pleading inadequate |
| Whether the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Sound Physicians because it was not incorporated at time of treatment | Labissoniere: Sound Physicians was not a legal entity during treatment, so claim is void | Sound Physicians: being non‑existent at time of treatment renders suit void ab initio | Held: Subject matter jurisdiction exists because Sound Physicians was a properly formed LLC when sued; suing a legal entity (not a trade name) suffices; court rejects lack‑of‑subject‑matter argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 445, 185 A.3d 680 (Conn. App. 2018) (prior appeal addressing whether a surgeon is a "similar health care provider" for internists)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1, 12 A.3d 865 (Conn. 2011) (failure to satisfy § 52‑190a implicates personal jurisdiction and supports dismissal)
- Park Nat'l Bank v. 3333 Main, LLC, 127 Conn. App. 774, 15 A.3d 1150 (Conn. App. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Caron v. Connecticut Pathology Group, P.C., 187 Conn. App. 555, 202 A.3d 1024 (Conn. App. 2019) (pleadings construed broadly but essential factual allegations cannot be supplied by conjecture)