Shortell v. Cavanagh
15 A.3d 1042
| Conn. | 2011Background
- In December 2006, Cavanagh performed a dental implant with anesthesia on Shortell without obtaining informed consent.
- Shortell alleged that Cavanagh failed to disclose significant risks, causing nerve injury, pain, numbness, and mental anguish.
- Shortell filed a negligence complaint asserting failure to inform of significant risks, but did not attach a good faith certificate or a similar-health-care-opinion.
- Cavanagh moved to dismiss, arguing § 52-190a requires a written opinion and good faith certificate for such claims.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the issue on appeal was whether § 52-190a applies to lack of informed consent claims.
- This court held that § 52-190a does not apply to informed consent claims, which are governed by a lay standard of materiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-190a applies to lack of informed consent claims | Shortell argues § 52-190a is inapplicable to informed consent claims. | Cavanagh contends § 52-190a applies because informed consent is part of care and treatment. | § 52-190a does not apply to informed consent claims. |
| Whether requiring a similar-health-care-opinion at filing is appropriate for informed consent | No opinion letter is required at filing for informed consent cases. | The statute requires an opinion from a similar provider at filing to show grounds for negligence. | No such opinion is required for informed consent cases; applying § 52-190a would lead to absurd results. |
| Whether a lay standard governs informed consent and medical-negligence standards interplay | Informed consent uses a lay standard of materiality, not medical negligence. | The standard should align with medical-negligence concepts defined by § 52-190a. | Informed consent uses a lay standard of materiality; § 52-190a breach-of-care standard does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dias v. Grady, 292 Conn. 350 (2009) (defined medical negligence as breach of standard of care for § 52-190a)
- Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282 (1983) (established lay standard for informed consent)
- Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians & Surgeons, P.C., 254 Conn. 131 (2000) (expert testimony not necessary to establish duty or disclosure)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (distinguished from informed consent case regarding similarity of providers for § 52-190a)
- Lambert v. Stovell, 205 Conn. 1 (1987) (limitations timing misapplied to informed consent in light of § 52-190a)
- Levesque v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 234 (2008) (discussed expert evidence related to risks and disclosure in informed consent)