D'ERAMO v. Smith

• Decision Date: 17 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. 17112.,17112.
• Citation: 872 A.2d 408,273 Conn. 610
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Vincent D'ERAMO v. James R. SMITH, Claims Commissioner.

872 A.2d 408

273 Conn. 610

Vincent D'ERAMO v. James R. SMITH, Claims Commissioner.

No. 17112.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 22, 2004.

Decided May 17, 2005.

Joseph A. Kubic, with whom, on the brief, were James R. Winkel and Stephen P. Wright, Milford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Thomas P. Clifford III, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and William J. McCullough, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

SULLIVAN, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, ZARELLA and CORRADINO, Js.

SULLIVAN, C.J.

The plaintiff, Vincent D'Eramo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his application for a writ of mandamus ordering the defendant, James R. Smith, claims commissioner (claims commissioner), to authorize his medical malpractice action against the state pursuant to General Statutes § 4-160(b).¹ The claims commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The trial court dismissed the action, not on jurisdictional grounds, but because § 4-160(b) did not apply retroactively to the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim and, therefore, the plaintiff had no clear legal right to the relief requested in his application. We conclude that the form of judgment is improper because the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's application and, therefore, the matter should not have been dismissed. We agree with the trial court, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we conclude that judgment should enter for the claims commissioner.

The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff injured his wrist on or about February 3, 1998. Thereafter, he made arrangements for surgery to repair the injury. Prior to the scheduled surgery, the plaintiff was committed to the custody of the department of correction (department). While in the custody of the department, the plaintiff underwent surgery on July 27, 1998. On January 6, 1999, the plaintiff filed with the claims commissioner a notice of claim alleging that the delay by the department in providing adequate medical care to the plaintiff, even though it had been notified of his condition, had resulted in permanent damage to his wrist.

Meanwhile, in 1998, the legislature enacted No. 98-76 of the 1998 Public Acts (P.A. 98-76), now codified in relevant part at § 4-160(b), which provided that if a claimant alleges malpractice against the state and files a certificate of good faith in accordance with General Statutes § 52-190a,² the claims commissioner "shall authorize suit against the state . . . ." Public Act 98-76 took effect on October 1, 1998. In December, 2001, the plaintiff filed with the claims commissioner a certificate of good faith in accordance with § 52-190a. On March 8, 2002, the plaintiff filed with the claims commissioner a motion for authorization to bring an action against the state. A hearing on the claim³ was scheduled for September 16, 2002. Before the scheduled hearing date, the plaintiff commenced the present action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the claims commissioner to authorize suit against the state and an injunction against the claims commissioner to prevent him from conducting a hearing on the plaintiff's claim until a writ of mandamus had been issued.

The claims commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Specifically, the claims commissioner argued that he is absolutely immune to suits arising from the exercise of his adjudicative powers. He also argued that he was not required to authorize the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against the state under § 4-160(b) because the statute does not apply retroactively to the plaintiff's claim. The trial court granted the claims commissioner's motion to dismiss on the ground that § 4-160(b) is not retroactive and, therefore, that the plaintiff had no clear legal right to the relief requested in his application. See Stratford v. State Board of Mediation & Arbitration, 239 Conn. 32, 44, 681 A.2d 281 (1996).⁴ Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly concluded that P.A. 98-76 is not retroactive because it constituted a substantive rather than a procedural change to the statutory scheme and the legislature did not clearly and unequivocally express an intent that it apply retroactively. We note that the trial court's determination that § 4-160(b) is not retroactive and, therefore, that the plaintiff had no clear right to the relief sought, concerns the merits of the plaintiff's mandamus action, rather than the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we treat the portion of the claims commissioner's motion to dismiss addressing the merits of the action as a motion for summary judgment and treat the trial court's dismissal as the rendering of judgment in favor of the claims commissioner. See Sullivan v. State, 189 Conn. 550, 552 n. 4, 457 A.2d 304 (1983);⁵ cf. Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441, 445 n. 5, 844 A.2d 836 (2004).⁶

The claims commissioner argues that the trial court's judgment may be affirmed on the alternate ground that the plaintiff's application should be dismissed because he has not exhausted his remedies before the claims commissioner and because the power to waive the state's immunity to suit is committed solely to the legislature and, through the legislature, to the claims commissioner.⁷

"Ordinarily, we would consider the defendant's alternate grounds for affirmance only after finding merit in [the claim] raised on appeal. [O]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [however, it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented ... and the court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Development Corp., 266 Conn. 572, 578-79, 833 A.2d 908 (2003). We therefore consider as a threshold issue the claims commissioner's claimed alternate ground for affirmance.

"Under our exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action that seeks a remedy that could be provided through an administrative proceeding, unless and until that remedy has been sought in the administrative forum.... In the absence of exhaustion of that remedy, the action must be dismissed." (Citation omitted.) Drumm v. Brown, 245 Conn. 657, 676, 716 A.2d 50 (1998). "We have recognized that a party aggrieved by a decision of an administrative agency may be excused from exhaustion of administrative remedies if: recourse to the administrative remedy would be futile or inadequate ... or injunctive relief from an agency decision is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm." (Citations omitted.) Polymer Resources, Ltd. v. Keeney, 227 Conn. 545, 561, 630 A.2d 1304 (1993).

In the present case, the claims commissioner argues that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the exhaustion doctrine because he failed to proceed with the scheduled September 16, 2002 hearing before the claims commissioner. This argument has two prongs. First, he argues that, if this court determines that § 4-160(b) applies to the plaintiff's claim, then the plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedy by proceeding with the hearing before the claims commissioner to determine whether the plaintiff has complied with the statutory procedural requirements. The issue before this court, however, is not whether the plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements of § 4-160(b); it is whether § 4-160(b) applies at all to the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim. The claims commissioner's argument, properly understood, is not grounded in exhaustion principles because it is premised on a preliminary determination by this court that § 4-160(b) applies retroactively to the plaintiff's claim. In other words, the claims commissioner's argument is not that this court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether § 4-160(b) applies retroactively; it is that, if this court determines that § 4-160(b) does apply retroactively, we should not direct a judgment for the plaintiff, but should remand the matter to the claims commissioner for a hearing. Because we conclude that § 4-160(b) does not apply retroactively, we need not determine whether the plaintiff was required to follow the procedures set forth in § 4-160(b).

Second, the claims commissioner argues that the plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies because the claims commissioner's current position that § 4-160(b) is not retroactive could be revisited at a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for authorization to bring an action against the state. Although, as we have indicated, we need not decide in this case what, if any, proceedings before the claims commissioner are contemplated by § 4-160(b), the legislative history of the statute makes clear that the legislature's primary purpose in enacting the statute was to eliminate, for medical malpractice claimants, the delay and inconvenience engendered by the generally applicable procedures for claims against the state pursuant to chapter 53 of the General Statutes. The plaintiff should not have to go through these more onerous procedures in order to determine whether the less onerous procedures are available. To subject the plaintiff unnecessarily to those procedures would be to subject him, immediately and irreparably, to the very harm that the legislature intended to avoid. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff's mandamus action is not barred by the exhaustion doctrine.

We...