Simmons v. Weiss
168 A.3d 617
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff David Simmons sued podiatrist Scott Weiss, physician’s assistant Scott Brown, and Norwalk Hospital after two toes were amputated during surgery; complaint included claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a for failure to file a written opinion of a similar health care provider; trial court (Judge Lee) granted the motions and entered judgment of dismissal in Feb.–Mar. 2015.
- Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal but filed a motion to open the judgment on July 10, 2015 (after the four-month statutory period set by § 52-212a had expired).
- Trial court (Judge Povodator) sua sponte concluded Judge Lee erred in dismissing the entire complaint because the informed-consent claim was outside § 52-190a, and granted the motion to open in part to reinstate the consent claims while leaving malpractice claims dismissed.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to open the judgment because plaintiff’s motion was untimely and no recognized exception (fraud, duress, mutual mistake) to the four-month rule was found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over appeal of motion to open | Simmons did not contest jurisdiction directly; focus on merits | Appellants argued appeal is allowed because they raise a colorable claim that the trial court lacked authority to open the judgment | Court had jurisdiction because appellants raised a colorable claim that the trial court lacked authority to open the judgment |
| Whether trial court properly opened judgment after four-month limit in § 52-212a | Motion to open based on alleged procedural errors and lack of counsel timeliness; equitable grounds to correct alleged mischaracterization of complaint | Motion was filed after statutory four-month period and no common-law exception (fraud, duress, mutual mistake) was pleaded or found | Court held trial court lacked authority: motion to open was untimely and no exception applied; reversal required |
| Whether equitable circumstances justified opening despite lapse of time (relying on Connecticut Savings Bank) | Plaintiff relied on trial court’s view that defendants misled prior judge, creating inequity warranting opening | Defendants argued their conduct did not amount to deception sufficient to invoke equitable exception; dismissal under § 52-190a was proper given lack of expert opinion letter | Court found no comparable deception or injustice; defendants’ conduct did not warrant equitable relief and original dismissal was not manifestly unjust |
| Whether error of law in original dismissal permits opening after four months | Plaintiff argued original dismissal improperly encompassed entire complaint including non-§52-190a claims | Defendants argued that after four months an error of law (absent jurisdictional error or recognized exception) is not a basis to open judgment | Court held an error of law alone is not an exception to the four-month rule; opening for that reason exceeded court’s authority |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263 (Conn. 1992) (courts have intrinsic power to open judgments obtained by fraud, duress, or mutual mistake)
- Connecticut Savings Bank v. Obenauf, 59 Conn. App. 351 (Conn. App. 2000) (equitable relief may justify opening a judgment that is facially inconsistent with the complaint)
- Nelson v. Charlesworth, 82 Conn. App. 710 (Conn. App. 2004) (exception where court lacked power to open due to fraudulent conduct that vitiated the four-month limit)
- Gallagher v. Gallagher, 29 Conn. App. 482 (Conn. App. 1992) (after four months a judgment may not be opened for mere legal error unless jurisdictional)