314 Conn. 709
Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiff Kristin Wilkins sued Connecticut Childbirth & Women’s Center and Women’s Health Associates alleging malpractice by certified nurse‑midwives and a registered nurse; institutional liability was vicarious.
- Connecticut statute §52‑190a(a) requires a pre‑suit written opinion from a "similar health care provider" as defined in §52‑184c.
- §52‑184c(c) defines a similar provider for specialists as one (1) trained and experienced in the same specialty and (2) certified by the appropriate American board in the same specialty.
- The plaintiff submitted a good‑faith opinion letter authored by a board‑certified obstetrician; the Appellate Court held that, for alleged nurse‑midwife negligence, the opinion had to come from someone trained/certified in nurse‑midwifery or nursing.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court majority held the obstetrician qualified as a "similar health care provider," but Justice Robinson (joined by two justices) dissented, arguing that the majority misread §52‑184c(c) and effectively overruled Bennett v. New Milford Hospital sub silentio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an obstetrician is a "similar health care provider" for alleged nurse‑midwife malpractice under §52‑184c(c) | Wilkins: both practice obstetrics; an obstetrician supervising midwives may satisfy the statute | Defendants/App. Ct.: nurse‑midwifery is a separate profession; opinion must come from someone trained/certified in nurse‑midwifery or nursing | Dissent: would hold an obstetrician is not a similar provider because §52‑184c(c) requires same American board certification; would affirm Appellate Court dismissal |
| Whether §52‑184c(c)’s two prongs are conjunctive (training + same board certification) | Wilkins: shared specialty (obstetrics) satisfies similarity | Defendants: statute requires both prongs; different professions have distinct certification schemes | Dissent: reads statute as conjunctive; both prongs required, so different board certification is fatal |
| Role of statutory scheme for nurse‑midwives (team/collaboration with OB‑GYNs) in defining "similar" | Wilkins: statutory collaboration and supervisory relationship supports treating OBs as similar providers | Defendants: collaboration does not erase distinct licensing/certification and separate standards of care | Dissent: collaboration does not transform distinct professions into "similar" under §52‑184c(c); midwifery has its own certification/standards |
| Precedent (Bennett) and stare decisis — whether Bennett permits broader authors of opinion letters | Wilkins: majority effectively narrows Bennett by focusing on complaint allegations and specialty overlap | Defendants: Bennett supports strict adherence to §52‑184c(c) for specialists | Dissent: majority’s ruling sub silentio overruns Bennett; stare decisis cautions against overruling statutory construction absent cogent reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 12 A.3d 865 (Conn. 2011) (court held opinion letters in specialist cases must meet §52‑184c(c) "similar health care provider" definition)
- Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 93 A.3d 1142 (Conn. 2014) (principles of statutory construction; adhere to prior interpretations)
- Waterbury v. Washington, 800 A.2d 1102 (Conn. 2002) (stare decisis—caution in overruling cases involving statutory construction)
- Ali v. Community Health Care Plan, Inc., 801 A.2d 775 (Conn. 2002) (vicarious liability standard where institutional defendant’s liability stems from employee nurse‑midwife)
- State v. Brown, 80 A.3d 878 (Conn. 2013) (textual reading—singular framing suggests singular application of terms)