Morgan v. Hartford Hospital
21 A.3d 451
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action on March 29, 2007, alleging decedent Una B. Morgan died after vascular surgery complications at Hartford Hospital in January 2005.
- The original complaint attached a written opinion from Michael A. Fifer, a physician, to satisfy § 52-190a(a).
- Amendment filed April 15, 2008 added a new opinion from Richard S. Nitzberg (dated April 26, 2007) and attached the original certificate of good faith.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on November 5, 2008, contending the original complaint failed § 52-190a(a) for lack of a proper similar-health-care-provider opinion.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss; plaintiffs appealed, arguing the original letter satisfied § 52-190a or, at least, that amendment cured any deficiency.
- This Supreme Court decision holds that the defendants waived their right to challenge the sufficiency of the original complaint by failing to timely file a motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the defendants waive their right to challenge the sufficiency of the original complaint? | Morgan contends waiver by failure to timely move to dismiss. | Lowe/Connecticut Surgical Group argue no waiver and § 52-190a governs dismissal. | Yes; waiver occurred, trial court erred in dismissing. |
| Is failure to attach a proper § 52-190a(a) opinion a matter of process/personal jurisdiction subject to 10-30/10-32 waiver? | Attachment is a precondition to service and a form issue that implicates process. | Defects in attachment are not subject to waiver protections under Practice Book rules. | Attachment is a form/processing defect; jurisdictional, hence waiver rules apply. |
| Can an amended complaint cure a deficient original filing under § 52-190a? | Amendment and new opinions can cure defects. | Cure may be possible only in limited circumstances; here, initial defect remains. | Not necessary to decide; the waiver analysis controls; remand for proceedings. |
| Is § 52-190a unconstitutional? | Challenge potential under the statute. | Statutory requirements are valid and enforceable. | Not reached; constitutional challenge left undecided due to waiver remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeConche v. Elligers, 215 Conn. 701 (1990) (written good faith certificate deemed pleading form, not subject matter jurisdiction)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (purpose of § 52-190a is to prevent frivolous actions; dismissal without prejudice)
- Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn.App. 569 (2009) (failure to attach sufficient opinion letter implicates personal jurisdiction; waiver possible)
- Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 300 Conn. 33 (2011) (form-of-form remedy under § 52-190a; simple mistake/omission allows relief under 52-592(a))
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10 (2004) (service deadlines are jurisdictional over the person; defects affect personal jurisdiction)
- Connor v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 260 Conn. 435 (2002) (proper service requires compliance with statute; lack of service affects jurisdiction over person)
- Rock Rimmon Grange # 142, Inc. v. The Bible Speaks Ministries, Inc., 92 Conn.App. 410 (2005) (service of process defects implicate personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction)