Santorso v. Bristol Hospital
127 Conn. App. 606
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Santorso, administratrix of the estate of Lawrence Santorso, filed a medical malpractice action against Bristol Hospital and two physicians in the first action, alleging two years of negligent treatment for a lung lesion that metastasized and left Santorso ineligible for surgery; Santorso died during the first action.
- The first action (CV-06-5001663-S) was brought in the New Britain Superior Court and initially faced dismissal for lack of a good faith certificate and opinion letters under § 52-190a (a), but the defect was deemed curable and the court allowed amendment.
- An amended complaint containing a good faith certificate and opinion letters was filed; defendants again moved to dismiss, arguing the opinions were not from similar health care providers, but the court denied these motions, noting the opinions could come from providers with sufficient training.
- Judge Pittman later granted motions to strike the first action, holding the complaint, without an appended pre-suit opinion from a similar provider, was legally insufficient under § 52-190a (a); Santorso did not appeal the ruling, and judgment was entered pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44.
- Approximately six weeks later, Santorso commenced the present action, alleging the same causes of action, seeking wrongful death damages, and invoking § 52-592(a) (accidental failure of suit); the present complaint included a good faith certificate and the same opinions as in the first action, and asserted § 52-592(a) as saving it from statutes of limitations and repose.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the present action was barred by res judicata because the first action was decided on the merits; Judge Shortall denied the motions; on appeal, the issue is whether the first action's disposition was on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the present action barred by res judicata? | First action was dismissed for form, not merits; res judicata should not bar subsequent suit. | First action was decided on the merits; present action is barred by claim preclusion. | Yes; res judicata bars the present action. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 583 (Conn. App. 2010) (defines res judicata elements and public policy promoting final judgments)
- Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., 50 Conn.App. 680 (Conn. App. 1998) (motion to strike can render a judgment on the merits for res judicata)
- Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn.App. 228 (Conn. App. 2010) (final judgment for appeal when summary judgment denial rests on res judicata)
- Carvette v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 152 Conn. 697 (Conn. 1964) (demonstrates a strike judgment can be a merits judgment)
- Brennan v. Berlin Iron-Bridge Co., 71 Conn. 479 (Conn. 1899) (historic view that a demurrer/strike can be a merits disposition)