Nichols v. Milford Pediatric Group, P.C.
64 A.3d 770
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Nichols sues Milford Pediatric Group for injuries during a blood draw in its offices.
- Plaintiff alleges negligent supervision and training of staff; seeks damages for physical injuries from the procedure.
- Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to attach certificate of good faith and a similar healthcare provider’s opinion as § 52-190a (a) requires.
- Plaintiff requests leave to amend; court grants amendment adding negligent supervision and res ipsa loquitur theories.
- Court dismisses, holding the alleged negligence is medical malpractice and subject to § 52-190a (a) requirements.
- Appeal contends § 52-190a (a) does not apply because claim is ordinary negligence; court affirms dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 52-190a (a) apply to this action? | Nichols argues the claim is ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice. | Milford Pediatric Group contends the claim sounds in medical malpractice. | Yes; claim sounds in medical malpractice and § 52-190a (a) applies. |
| Do prongs of Trimel govern whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice? | Blood collection is ministerial; prongs 2 and 3 not satisfied. | Claim involves a medical examination and medical judgment; prongs 2 and 3 satisfied. | Prongs 2 and 3 are satisfied; claim sounds in medical malpractice. |
| Was plaintiff required to file a good faith certificate and a written opinion letter at commencement? | Plaintiff argues no § 52-190a (a) requirement since not malpractice. | Both elements are required at commencement; failure to provide opinion letter is fatal. | Yes; both certificate and opinion letter required; failure to provide opinion letter warrants dismissal. |
| Can res ipsa loquitur or lack of expert proof defeat § 52-190a (a) requirements? | Res ipsa and lack of expert opinion would render § 52-190a (a) inapplicable. | Expert medical testimony is typically required; res ipsa loquitur does not apply to medical malpractice. | Res ipsa loquitur does not avoid § 52-190a (a) or eliminate need for a medical expert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 61 Conn. App. 353 (2001) (three-prong test to classify medical malpractice claims)
- Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551 (2005) (applies Trimel test for malpractice classification)
- Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569 (2009) (confirms requirement of § 52-190a (a) certification and opinion letter)
- Amsden v. Fischer, 62 Conn. App. 323 (2001) (expert testimony generally required in medical malpractice actions)
- Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 (2012) (doctrine of res ipsa loquitur generally does not apply to medical malpractice)
- Morgan v. Hartford Hospital, 301 Conn. 388 (2011) (failure to comply with § 52-190a (a) implicates personal jurisdiction; plenary review)