Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
12 A.3d 885
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed an initial medical malpractice action April 26, 2006 against hospital defendants and others for alleged premature discharge and negligent treatment of decedent’s mental health crisis.
- Hospital defendants dismissed the initial action under § 52-190a (c) for failure to attach a proper opinion letter to the complaint.
- Plaintiffs later amended the initial action against individual defendants with a purported opinion letter, and defendants again moved to dismiss the action.
- Plaintiffs commenced a separate medical malpractice action against hospital defendants on December 29, 2006, attaching a good faith certificate and an opinion letter dated November 3, 2006.
- The trial court bifurcated proceedings to try the § 52-592(a) issue separately, ultimately ruling the § 52-592(a) claim failed due to egregious conduct in selecting an opinion letter author.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether § 52-592(a) can save a time-barred action after a § 52-190a (c) dismissal for failure to attach a proper opinion letter, and whether the consolidation affected the review of the individual defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-592(a) can save a time-barred action after § 52-190a (c) dismissal for failure to attach an opinion letter. | Plaintiffs argue § 52-592(a) should apply as a matter of form. | Hospital defendants argue the failure was egregious and not a matter of form. | No; § 52-592(a) does not apply due to egregious conduct. |
| Whether the dismissal under § 52-190a (c) is jurisdictional or a matter of form for § 52-592(a) savings. | Plaintiffs rely on nonjurisdictional view of § 52-190a (a). | Defendants contend dismissal is subject to § 52-592(a) as a matter of form when appropriate. | Dismissal under § 52-190a (c) is a matter of form eligible for § 52-592(a) relief only if not egregious. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered the author qualifications of the opinion letter when applying § 52-592(a). | Plaintiffs contend Williamson’s opinion could qualify as a similar provider. | Defendants argue Williamson was not a similar health care provider for any defendant. | The court found Williamson was not a similar health care provider; § 52-592(a) not satisfied. |
| Whether consolidation of hospital and individual defendants affects appellate review on § 52-592(a) issues. | Plaintiffs claim consolidation requires reversal as to all defendants. | Defendants contend limits apply; appellate review remains separate for each defendant. | Plaintiffs abandoned claims against individual defendants; consolidation did not alter outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 210 Conn. 721 (1989) (§ 52-592 applies to saves in certain medical actions; not jurisdictional)
- Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 (1998) (egregious conduct precludes § 52-592 relief; disciplinary context; form vs. substance)
- Lacasse v. Burns, 214 Conn. 464 (1990) (form vs. substance; diligent inquiry; not all dismissals eligible)
- Dias v. Grady, 292 Conn. 350 (2009) (prelitigation opinion requirements; purpose of § 52-190a(a))
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (companion decision clarifying § 52-190a and similar health care provider scope)
- Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569 (2009) (§ 52-190a(a) not jurisdictional; dismissal is not subject-matter jurisdiction)