Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hosp., Inc.
Decision Date | 05 June 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 39681 |
Citation | 182 Conn.App. 445,185 A.3d 680 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | George LABISSONIERE, Coexecutor (Estate of Robert Labissoniere), et al. v. GAYLORD HOSPITAL, INC., et al. |
Keith A. Yagaloff, South Windsor, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Thomas O. Anderson, with whom were Kyle W. Deskus and, on the brief, Cristin E. Sheehan, Hartford, for the appellees (defendant Eileen Ramos et al.).
Michael G. Rigg, Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).
Sheldon, Elgo and Harper, Js.*
This appeal arises out of a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, George Labissoniere and Helen Civale, coexecutors of the estate of Robert Labissoniere (decedent), against the defendants, physicians Moe Kyaw, Madhuri Gadiyaram, and Eileen Ramos (physicians), and their employer, Gaylord Hospital, Inc. (hospital). The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by (1) failing to apply the appropriate legal standard for a motion to dismiss, and (2) determining that the author of the plaintiffs' opinion letter was not a similar health care provider on the basis of their related claim that they had alleged that the defendants were acting outside of their medical specialty such that their conduct should be judged against the standard of care applicable to that specialty. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of this appeal. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants on April 28, 2015. In their original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was admitted to the hospital on February 14, 2013, for medical care and rehabilitation following hip replacement surgery that had been performed at St. Francis Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that while under the care of the physicians, the decedent suffered from a retroperitoneal hematoma
, a postoperative condition that resulted in irreversible nerve damage, as well as hemorrhagic shock and multiorgan failure, requiring the decedent to be transferred back to St. Francis Hospital as an emergency admission on March 11, 2013.1
In an attempt to comply with General Statutes § 52–190a(a),2 the plaintiffs appended to their original complaint an opinion letter authored by David A. Mayer, a physician and general surgeon who was board certified in surgery. The physicians and the hospital subsequently filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 10–30(a)(2). In their respective motions, the defendants argued that because Mayer was board certified in surgery and not internal medicine, he was not a "similar health care provider," as defined in General Statutes § 52–184c,3 and, therefore, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.4 Included with the defendants' motions were affidavits,5 which established that the physicians are board certified in internal medicine and are not surgeons, that surgeries are not performed at the hospital, and that there are no surgeons on staff at the hospital.
On November 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a request for leave to file an amended complaint together with a proposed amended complaint in which they alleged that the physicians were board certified in internal medicine and that the treatment and diagnosis of the decedent was within the medical specialty of surgery. The plaintiffs did not attach to their amended complaint a new or amended opinion letter, nor did they explicitly allege that the defendants had acted outside the scope of their specialty of internal medicine.
The physicians and the hospital subsequently filed amended motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The defendants again alleged that Mayer was not a similar health care provider under § 52–184c. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that the physicians were acting as surgeons during their diagnosis and treatment of the decedent's retroperitoneal hematoma
. Attached to their objection was Mayer's affidavit, in which he stated that the decedent's condition was a postoperative condition that required consultation with a surgeon. The plaintiffs argued that their amended complaint and Mayer's affidavit demonstrated that the decedent's condition was within the specialty of surgery and, therefore, that the physicians had acted outside the scope of their medical specialty and that Mayer was a similar health care provider under § 52–184c(c).
During oral argument on the defendants' motions, the court asked the plaintiffs' counsel several times to identify where the plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants acted outside the scope of their specialty of internal medicine. The plaintiffs' counsel then cited multiple paragraphs from the amended complaint, which stated that the physicians are board certified in internal medicine and provided the decedent with treatment and diagnosis for a postoperative condition that was within the specialty of surgery. The court responded that the amended complaint
The court granted the defendants' amended motions to dismiss. In so doing, the court reasoned that (Citation omitted.) This appeal followed.
Before we address the plaintiffs' claims on appeal, we set forth the well settled standard of review.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc. , 300 Conn. 1, 10–11, 12 A.3d 865 (2011).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doyle v. Aspen Dental of Southern CT, PC , 179 Conn. App. 485, 491–92, 179 A.3d 249 (2018). "Our review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to § 52–190a is plenary." Torres v. Carrese , 149 Conn. App. 596, 608, 90 A.3d 256, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 912, 93 A.3d 595 (2014).
The plaintiffs' first claim is that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding the defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that it was improper for the court to consider the affidavits that the defendants attached to their motions because "the issues here do not involve factual issues concerning personal jurisdiction that are not determinable on the face of the record." The plaintiffs aver that "the correct standard on [these] motion[s] is that the court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) We disagree that the court erred by considering the defendants' affidavits.
Practice Book § 10–30(a) provides in relevant part: "A motion to dismiss shall be used to assert ... (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person ...." A motion to dismiss "shall always be filed with a supporting memorandum of law and, where appropriate, with supporting affidavits as to facts not apparent on the record." Practice Book § 10–30(c). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dorry v. Garden , 313 Conn. 516, 522–23, 98 A.3d 55 (2014).
The court did not err when it considered the defendants' affidavits in deciding their motions to dismiss. Although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kissel v. Ctr. for Women's Health, P.C.
...App. 550, 554, 119 A.3d 659 (2015); see also Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., supra, 10; Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 445, 451, 185 A.3d 680 (2018); Lohnes v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 132 Conn. App. 68, 76, 31 A.3d 810 (2011), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 921, 34 ......
-
Carpenter v. Daar
...... decision in Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., . 300 Conn. 1, 12 A.3d 865 (2011), for purposes of the motion. ..., 377. Citing Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc., 182. Conn.App. 445, 453, 185 A.3d 680 ......
-
Carpenter v. Daar
...... New Milford Hospital, Inc. , 300 Conn. 1, 12 A.3d 865 (2011), for purposes of the motion to dismiss ...Citing Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc. , 182 Conn. App. 445, 453, 185 A.3d 680 ......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Horsey
......See Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers , 310 Conn. 119, 132, 74 A.3d 1225 (2013) ("The correctness ......