Peters v. United Community & Family Services, Inc.
182 Conn. App. 688
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Peters sued DDS Edward Reynolds for alleged negligent maxillofacial surgery and attached a §52-190a opinion letter from a maxillofacial surgeon stating there appeared to be negligence. The letter did not state whether its author was board certified in the same specialty as Reynolds.
- Reynolds moved to dismiss under §52-190a(c), arguing the letter was defective because the author was not shown to be a “similar health care provider” (i.e., board-certified in the same specialty).
- Peters opposed and filed, with his opposition, a May 4, 2016 affidavit (and copy of a certificate) from the letter’s author attesting he had been board certified since 2008; Peters did not move to amend the complaint or file an amended opinion letter.
- The trial court declined to consider the late affidavit because the attempt to cure occurred after the statute of limitations had expired, granted the motion to dismiss as to Reynolds, and Peters appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: the attached opinion letter was facially deficient for failing to show the author was a similarly board-certified provider, and any curative step (amendment or affidavit) had to be taken before the limitations period ran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could consider an affidavit attached to opposition to cure a defective §52-190a opinion letter after limitations expired | Peters: the author met required qualifications when the letter was written; the omission was inadvertent and the affidavit clarifies credentials and may be considered under Practice Book §10-31 | Reynolds: affidavit can’t cure a facially deficient opinion letter after the statute of limitations; court must dismiss under §52-190a(c) | Held: Court may not rely on post‑limitations affidavit to cure the defective letter; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the opinion letter complied with §52-190a’s requirement that the author be a similar health care provider | Peters: author had necessary qualifications though not stated in letter | Reynolds: letter failed to show author was board‑certified in same specialty, so it wasn’t by a similar provider | Held: Letter was deficient for failing to state board certification as required by §52-184c(c) |
| Whether curing by affidavit is legally distinct from curing by amended pleading for statute‑of‑limitations purposes | Peters: affidavits have been accepted by some Superior Courts and should be treated differently from an amendment | Reynolds: allowing affidavit post‑limitations would evade Gonzales limits on amendments | Held: Procedures are not meaningfully different for SOL purposes; both must be initiated before limitations run |
| Remedy when a §52-190a letter is defective and cure occurs after limitations | Peters: affidavit should avoid dismissal | Reynolds: late cure is untimely; remedy is new action or §52-592 relief | Held: Late cure fails; plaintiff’s remedy is to refile or seek accidental failure of suit relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Langdon, 161 Conn. App. 497 (Conn. App. 2015) (permits amending/ substituting opinion letters only if sought within statute of limitations; court must allow timely as-of-right amendments)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2011) (requires opinion letters supporting malpractice claims to be from similar health care providers; dismissal without prejudice may allow relief under §52-592)
- Morgan v. Hartford Hospital, 301 Conn. 388 (Conn. 2011) (attachment of noncompliant opinion letter constitutes insufficient process and defeats personal jurisdiction)
- Lucisano v. Bisson, 132 Conn. App. 459 (Conn. App. 2011) (opinion letters must disclose author’s qualifications consistent with statutory language)
- Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2018) (reiterates that Gonzales permits amendments only if sought prior to expiration of statute of limitations)