The "officially released" date noted in each opinion indicates when it will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or was released as a slip opinion. This date is crucial as it marks the start of all time periods for filing post-opinion motions and petitions for certification. Opinions may undergo modifications and technical corrections before their official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In case of discrepancies between the advance release version and the final published version, the latter is authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history in the Connecticut Law Journal and official reports are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without permission.
In the case of GEORGE LABISSONIERE, COEXECUTOR (ESTATE OF ROBERT LABISSONIERE, ET AL. v. GAYLORD HOSPITAL, INC. ET AL. AC 39681), the plaintiffs, coexecutors of Robert Labissoniere's estate, sought damages for alleged medical malpractice by the hospital and several physicians. They included an opinion letter from a board-certified surgeon, M, in their original complaint, citing evidence of negligence. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint, asserting that the physicians were board certified in internal medicine, claiming the treatment and diagnosis fell within surgical specialty.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction because M was not a similar healthcare provider as defined by statute 52-184c. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court held that the trial court correctly considered the defendants’ affidavits, which provided independent evidence regarding the physicians’ specialties, and that the plaintiffs could not claim the court misapplied the legal standard. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet statutory requirements by not obtaining an opinion from a physician board-certified in internal medicine, as required by 52-184c, and did not adequately allege that the physicians acted outside their specialty.
The trial court concluded that the opinion letter provided by the plaintiffs was not compliant with General Statutes 52-190a due to the absence of a necessary allegation in the amended complaint. The court found no supporting evidence in M’s affidavit or the opinion letter. Additionally, the exception in General Statutes 52-184c was deemed inapplicable since the physicians treated R’s postoperative condition in a capacity that did not involve their surgical expertise. The action was initiated by the plaintiffs, co-executors of Robert Labissoniere's estate, against physicians Moe Kyaw, Madhuri Gadiyaram, Eileen Ramos, and Gaylord Hospital, Inc., alleging medical malpractice. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, leading to the plaintiffs’ appeal. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the trial court misapplied the legal standards for a motion to dismiss and incorrectly assessed the qualifications of the opinion letter's author. The appeal was affirmed, with the court finding no merit in the plaintiffs' claims. The case began on April 28, 2015, following the decedent's admission to the hospital after hip replacement surgery, where he developed severe postoperative complications. The defendants argued that the opinion letter's author, being a surgeon, did not meet the definition of a similar health care provider as required by statute.
On November 20, 2015, the plaintiffs sought permission to file an amended complaint, alleging that the physicians involved were board certified in internal medicine and that their actions regarding the decedent's treatment pertained to the surgical specialty. However, the plaintiffs did not submit a new or amended opinion letter nor claimed that the defendants acted outside their internal medicine specialty. In response, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that one physician, Mayer, was not a similar health care provider under statute 52-184c. The plaintiffs contended that the physicians acted as surgeons in diagnosing and treating the decedent's retroperitoneal hematoma, supporting their argument with Mayer's affidavit indicating the need for surgical consultation for a postoperative condition.
During the oral argument, the court repeatedly asked the plaintiffs' counsel to identify specific allegations of the defendants acting beyond their internal medicine specialty. In response, counsel referenced parts of the amended complaint that stated the physicians were board certified and treated a condition related to surgery. The court noted that the complaint did not explicitly assert that the doctors acted outside their specialty, merely indicating that the case involved surgical issues. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, reasoning that the amended complaint and the absence of an expert opinion did not sufficiently allege that the defendants treated a condition outside their specialty. The court emphasized the necessity of such allegations and expert opinions to meet the exception outlined in 52-184c. Following the dismissal, the case was appealed, where the standard of review was established as de novo, focusing on the legal conclusions drawn from undisputed material facts. The court's review would consider the allegations favorably to the plaintiffs while adhering strictly to the existing record.
The trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-190a is subject to plenary review. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court incorrectly applied the legal standard by considering the defendants' affidavits, arguing that the court should only rely on the allegations in the complaint. However, the court was justified in considering the affidavits, as Practice Book § 10-30 allows for supporting affidavits regarding jurisdictional issues. The court can incorporate undisputed facts from affidavits, which may provide context to the allegations in the complaint. The defendants’ affidavits established a lack of jurisdiction, which the plaintiffs failed to counter with evidence, allowing the court to dismiss the case without further proceedings.
Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed the court erred in finding that the opinion letter did not meet the requirements of § 52-190a and that the exception under § 52-184c was inapplicable. The defendants argued that since the plaintiffs did not allege the physicians acted beyond their specialty of internal medicine, the exception under § 52-184c did not apply, necessitating an opinion letter from a physician certified in that specialty. The court agreed with the defendants on these points.
Section 52-190a mandates that prior to filing a personal injury lawsuit against a health care provider, the filing party must conduct a reasonable inquiry to establish a good faith belief in the existence of negligence. This belief must be substantiated by a written opinion from a similar health care provider, as defined in Section 52-184c, which must indicate evidence of medical negligence and provide a detailed rationale for that opinion. For board-certified providers, a similar health care provider must be trained and certified in the same specialty. In this case, the physicians involved were board certified in internal medicine, necessitating an opinion letter from an expert also certified in internal medicine. The plaintiffs did not meet this requirement, as their expert, Mayer, was not board certified in that specialty, rendering the opinion letter noncompliant with Section 52-190a, thus necessitating dismissal.
The plaintiffs attempted to invoke an exception in 52-184c, which allows for consideration of specialists outside the defendant's specialty when treating conditions not within that specialty. However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that the physicians acted outside their specialty of internal medicine in their amended complaint. The court clarified that it did not impose a requirement for the opinion letter to explicitly state that the physicians acted outside their specialty. Instead, it sought any basis indicating such a claim. The court examined Mayer’s affidavit and the opinion letter but found insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the defendants acted outside their specialty, leading to the conclusion that the opinion letter did not comply with Section 52-190a. The plaintiffs further contended that their claims fell within the surgical specialty, arguing that the physicians' actions were outside their internal medicine specialty, but this assertion was not substantiated in their complaint.
In Lohnes v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, the plaintiff, admitted for respiratory issues, suffered an allergic reaction to medication administered by the defendant physician and subsequently filed a medical negligence suit. The plaintiff included an opinion letter from a pulmonologist but the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the letter did not comply with statutory requirements since it was not authored by a similar healthcare provider. The defendant physician, board certified in emergency medicine, supported the motion with an affidavit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions, and on appeal, the plaintiff contended that the physician acted outside his specialty. The appellate court rejected this claim, noting the plaintiff had conceded that the complaint lacked explicit allegations of the physician practicing beyond his field. The court highlighted that the plaintiff sought emergency treatment, complained of specific symptoms, and that the complaint did not suggest the physician provided pulmonology care.
In the current case, the decedent was hospitalized for rehabilitation after hip surgery performed elsewhere. After developing complications, the decedent was treated by physicians who misdiagnosed the condition. The plaintiffs claimed negligence in the assessment, suggesting the physicians acted outside their specialty of internal medicine due to the nature of the complication. However, the court noted that specialties like internal medicine often overlap with others and that the physicians were treating a postsurgical complication, which could fall within their expertise. The court emphasized that allowing such claims would undermine the broad responsibilities of internal medicine physicians, as they are tasked with diagnosing a wide range of conditions. Thus, the argument that the defendant acted outside his specialty was deemed unfounded.
The court found no merit in the claim that the defendant physician acted outside his emergency medicine specialty while treating the plaintiff in the hospital's emergency department. The plaintiffs failed to allege that the physicians deviated from the scope of their internal medicine specialty, thus the exception in General Statutes 52-184c was not applicable. Consequently, the plaintiffs were mandated to secure an expert opinion letter from a board-certified internal medicine specialist, which they did not provide. As a result, the court rightly dismissed the defendants' motions due to lack of personal jurisdiction, affirming the judgment with the concurrence of other judges. The case involved claims of malpractice related to the diagnosis and treatment of a retroperitoneal hematoma, despite unrelated medical issues leading to the decedent's death. Under General Statutes 52-190a, a civil action alleging negligence against a health care provider cannot proceed without a reasonable inquiry and a certificate affirming good faith belief in negligence, supported by a written opinion from a similar health care provider. This opinion must be retained but only disclosed for validating the certificate; failure to comply can lead to dismissal.
General Statutes 52-184c establishes that in civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death due to a health care provider's alleged negligence, the claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the provider breached the prevailing professional standard of care. This standard is defined as the level of care recognized as acceptable by reasonably prudent health care providers in similar circumstances. If the defendant is a certified specialist, a "similar health care provider" is one certified in the same specialty and with comparable training. If the treatment falls outside the provider's specialty, a specialist in that area is considered similar for evaluation purposes. The case Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth, Women’s Center clarifies that the status of a health care institution's agent is determined by the agent’s specialty.
Affidavits from physicians supported their motion to dismiss, while the hospital submitted an affidavit from its Chief Medical Officer. Previous cases, such as Kroha v. LaMonica, caution against interpreting the statute to impose strict liability on physicians treating undiagnosed conditions, as this could deter them from accepting complex cases. The court noted that the statute should not penalize physicians unless they knowingly treated a condition outside their specialty, thus balancing the need for patient protection with the encouragement of thorough medical investigation. The court affirmed this interpretation, aligning with Kroha's conclusions about appropriate standards of care.
