Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Grp., P.C.

Decision Date11 April 2017
Docket NumberSC 19576
Citation157 A.3d 70,325 Conn. 198
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
Parties Donald BRIERE et al. v. GREATER HARTFORD ORTHOPEDIC GROUP, P.C., et al.

Lorinda S. Coon, with whom was John W. Sitarz, for the appellants (defendants).

Ron Murphy, with whom was Roger Kaye, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Roy W. Breitenbach and Michael J. Keane, Jr., filed a brief for the Connecticut Orthopaedic Society as amicus curiae.

Claire V. Jackson and Michael G. Rigg filed a brief for the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

James J. Healy and Cynthia C. Bott filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.

ROGERS, C. J.

In this certified appeal, we are tasked with clarifying the contours of the relation back doctrine, specifically as applied to medical malpractice claims.1 The plaintiff, Donald Briere,2 brought a cause of action against the defendants, Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. (practice group), and David Kruger, an orthopedic surgeon, alleging medical malpractice during a spinal surgery resulting in the plaintiff suffering quadriparesis

. After the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52–584,3 the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint. Both the original and amended complaints included claims that Kruger failed to properly plan and to perform the surgery through the use of an instrumentality in his control. The plaintiff's original complaint, however, included detailed allegations of the improper usage of a skull clamp

. In his proposed amended complaint, however, the plaintiff replaced those detailed allegations with allegations of the improper use of a retractor blade. The trial court denied the request to amend, narrowly construing the original complaint as limited to a claim of the negligent usage of the skull clamp and subsequently granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff had abandoned the theory that negligent use of the skull clamp had caused his injury. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request to amend, broadly construing the original complaint as a claim of negligence in performing the surgery, which could be supported by either set of factual allegations. Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. , 158 Conn.App. 66, 118 A.3d 596 (2015). The defendants advocate for this court to adopt the narrower approach used by the trial court and to reverse the judgment of the AppellateCourt. We decline to do so and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In November, 2009, the plaintiff initiated a cause of action against the defendants for injuries he suffered during a spinal surgery performed on May 21, 2008.4 In count one of the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Kruger had failed to plan or to perform a safe and effective operation. The plaintiff made additional allegations in count one that Kruger was negligent in his use of a skull clamp

to secure the plaintiff during the surgery.5 At the time that he filed his complaint, the plaintiff also filed a petition for an automatic extension of the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the petition, extending the expiration of the statute of limitations from May 21, 2010 to August 19, 2010.

Six months before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the defendants filed a request to revise, in which they sought a more complete or particular statement of how Kruger had failed to plan or to perform a safe and effective surgery. The plaintiff objected to the request to revise, asserting that the allegations were not conclusory and that the proper mechanism to procure a more specific statement was through discovery. Prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the trial court, Holzberg, J. , sustained the plaintiff's objection.

Subsequently, the plaintiff disclosed James Macon, a neurosurgeon, as an expert witness and indicated that Macon would testify that Kruger had been negligent when he improperly placed a retractor blade during surgery. The defendants deposed Macon five months after he was disclosed as an expert.

The plaintiff then filed a request for leave to file an amended complaint. In the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff removed the allegations related to the skull clamp

and added allegations that Kruger had failed to properly apply a retractor blade during surgery. The defendants objected to the request on the ground that the allegations concerning the retractor blade were new allegations and did not relate back to the original pleading, and therefore were barred by the statute of limitations. In a written memorandum of decision, the trial court, Aurigemma, J. , sustained the defendants' objection.

Subsequently, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove medical negligence under the original complaint because he had not disclosed an expert who could testify concerning the skull clamp

. Prior to responding to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to rule on whether it would admit Macon's expert testimony on the retractor blade theory at trial in light of the court's denial of the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to include the retractor blade allegations. In response to the motion in limine, the trial court, Aurigemma, J. , ruled that it would not admit Macon's testimony at trial. The plaintiff then filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment in which he argued that the trial court's denial of his request to amend and its ruling on the motion in limine were inconsistent with the trial court's previous ruling sustaining the plaintiff's objection to the defendants' request to revise, and that the rulings were fundamentally unfair. The plaintiff did not submit affidavits or other evidence that created a genuine issue of material fact concerning the negligent usage of the skull clamp

. Judge Aurigemma rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts on the ground that the plaintiff did not have an expert who could testify that improper skull clamp usage caused his injuries, which were the specific allegations in the complaint.6 Judge Aurigemma noted that her decision was dependent upon her previous denial of the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint.

The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. See id. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request to amend and its subsequent summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants on the ground that the trial court improperly applied the relation back doctrine. Id., at 68, 118 A.3d 596. Specifically, the Appellate Court held that the retractor blade allegations related back to the original theory that Kruger was negligent during the surgery, as found in the allegations that Kruger had failed to plan or to perform a safe and effective surgery. Id., at 78, 118 A.3d 596. This appeal followed.

The defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly interpreted the allegations in the original complaint that Kruger failed to properly plan or to perform the surgery as independent from the allegations that he failed to properly use the skull clamp

. Under this state's fact based pleading requirements, the defendants assert, the planning and performance allegations cannot stand alone because they are conclusory in nature and merely introduce the skull clamp allegations that form the factual basis for the plaintiff's claim. They further assert that the Appellate Court improperly interpreted the res ipsa locquitor allegations; see footnote 4 of this opinion; as support for a theory of negligence beyond improper skull clamp placement in the original complaint. The defendants claim that when the original complaint is properly read as a claim that Kruger improperly used the skull clamp during surgery, then the proposed amended allegations regarding the retractor blade do not relate back because they are an entirely different theory of negligence.7

The plaintiff asserts that the Appellate Court properly interpreted the original complaint as a theory that Kruger negligently planned and performed the surgery in one or more ways. He claims that the original allegations provided fair notice to the defendants that his theory of negligence related to Kruger's conduct during the surgery. The plaintiff further asserts that within the context of a medical malpractice case, where the plaintiff may not be able to discover the precise manner in which the defendant was negligent until after the parties engage in discovery, it would be unjust to hold a plaintiff to as narrow a pleading standard as the defendants advocate.

We begin by setting forth the proper standard of review and applicable legal principles. "[T]he de novo standard of review is always the applicable standard of review for resolving whether subsequent amendments to a complaint relate back for purposes of the statute of limitations."8

(Emphasis omitted.) Sherman v. Ronco , 294 Conn. 548, 554 n.10, 985 A.2d 1042 (2010).

"The relation back doctrine has been well established by this court." Alswanger v. Smego , 257 Conn. 58, 64, 776 A.2d 444 (2001). There is a " ‘well settled’ body of case law holding that ‘a party properly may amplify or expand what has already been alleged in support of a cause of action, provided the identity of the cause of action remains substantially the same. ... If a new cause of action is alleged in an amended complaint ... it will [speak] as of the date when it was filed. ... A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief. ... A change in, or an addition to, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Sempey v. Stamford Hosp., AC 39221
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • April 3, 2018
    ...or expanding upon previous allegations." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. , 325 Conn. 198, 207–208, 157 A.3d 70 (2017)."In our review of the plaintiff's claim, we must evaluate the allegations in the complaint. The inte......
  • Martinez v. City of New Haven
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 30, 2018
    ...1084 (2011) ; GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford , 144 Conn. App. 165, 184, 73 A.3d 742 (2013) ; see also Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. , 325 Conn. 198, 206 n.8, 157 A.3d 70 (2017) (stating that relation back inquiry presents question of law, but "once the trial court finds that......
  • Reiner v. Reiner
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 28, 2019
    ...used in the plaintiff's April 17, 2017 filing, we treat it as an objection. See Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. , 325 Conn. 198, 217, 157 A.3d 70 (2017) (Robinson, J. , concurring) (interpretation of pleadings is question of law); see also Farren v. Farren , 142 Conn. App.......
  • Henry v. Imbruce
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • December 26, 2017
    ...plaintiffs' original complaint. The defendants had long been on notice of these allegations. See Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. , 325 Conn. 198, 206–10, 157 A.3d 70 (2017) (reasserting relation back doctrine, by which pleadings may be amended if same operative facts contr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT