Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hosp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 July 2020
• Docket Number: AC 42581
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: George LABISSONIERE, coexecutor (Estate of Robert Labissoniere) et al. v. GAYLORD HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

199 Conn.App. 265

235 A.3d 589

George LABISSONIERE, coexecutor (Estate of Robert Labissoniere) et al.

v.GAYLORD HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

AC 42581

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 9, 2020

Officially released July 21, 2020

Keith Yagaloff, South Windsor, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Thomas Anderson, with whom, on the brief, was Cristin E. Sheehan, Hartford, for the appellees (defendant Eileen Ramos et al.).

Michael G. Rigg, Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).

Laura E. Waltman, with whom, on the brief, was R. Cornelius Danaher, Jr., Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Sound Physicians of Connecticut, LLC).

Lavine, Moll and Sheldon, Js.

LAVINE, J.

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, internal medicine physicians, Moe Kyaw, Madhuri Gadiyaram, and Eileen Ramos (collectively, physicians), and their employers, Gaylord Hospital, Inc. (hospital), and Sound Physicians of Connecticut, LLC (Sound Physicians). The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their claims for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-190a.¹ The plaintiffs’ central claim on appeal is that the court erred in concluding that the physicians were internists acting within their specialty when they treated the decedent. The plaintiffs therefore assert that the trial court erred in concluding that the opinion letter attached to their complaint, which was written by a surgeon, failed to

meet the personal jurisdictional requirement of § 52-190a and the allegations of the complaint did not satisfy the personal jurisdictional exception provided by General Statutes § 52-184c (c).² We reject the plaintiffs’ claim. Sound Physicians argues on appeal, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against it because it was not a legal entity at the time that the decedent was treated at the hospital. We disagree that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

In May, 2015, the plaintiffs instituted a prior action against the physicians and the hospital on the basis of allegations that are substantially similar to those in the present case. In September, 2016, the trial court, Cobb, J. , dismissed that action for lack of personal jurisdiction because the opinion letter attached to the plaintiffs’ complaint was not authored by a "similar health care provider," as required by § 52-190a. This court affirmed the judgment of dismissal on direct appeal. See Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc. , 182 Conn. App. 445, 185 A.3d 680 (2018) ( Labissoniere I ).

In Labissoniere I , the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was admitted to the hospital on February 14, 2013, for medical care and rehabilitation following a hip replacement surgery performed at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center (St. Francis Hospital). Id., at 448, 185 A.3d 680. The plaintiffs further alleged that, while under the care of

the physicians at the hospital, 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."³ Id. The plaintiffs alleged that the physicians were board certified in internal medicine and that they "provided the decedent with treatment and diagnosis for a postoperative condition which was within the specialty of surgery." In an attempt to comply with § 52-190a (a), the plaintiffs appended to their complaint an opinion letter authored by David A. Mayer, a physician and board certified general surgeon. Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc. , supra, 182 Conn. App. at 448–49, 185 A.3d 680.

The physicians and the hospital moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that Mayer was not an internist and, therefore, was not a "similar health care provider," as defined in § 52-184c. Id., 449, 185 A.3d 680. The plaintiffs countered that Mayer was a "similar health care provider" pursuant to § 52-184c (c) because the physicians were acting as surgeons during their diagnosis and treatment of the decedent's retroperitoneal hematoma

. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, Judge Cobb reasoned that "neither the ... complaint ... nor the surgeon's written opinion letter allege[s] or state[s] that the [physicians and the hospital] were acting outside their specialty of internal medicine in treating the [decedent] or that they undertook the diagnosis and treatment of a condition outside of their specialty such that their conduct should be judged against the standards of care applicable to that specialty. Such an allegation and expert opinion is necessary to fall within the exception contained in [ § 52-184c (c) ]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 451, 185 A.3d 680. Accordingly, Judge Cobb dismissed

the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On appeal in Labissoniere I , the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in determining that the opinion letter did not comply with § 52-190a, and that the exception set forth in § 52-184c (c) was inapplicable. Id., at 454, 185 A.3d 680. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that "the exception in § 52-184c (c) applie[d] because they alleged that the treatment and care the physicians rendered to the decedent fell ‘within the specialty of surgery’ and, therefore, the physicians were acting outside of their specialty of internal medicine."

Id., at 456, 185 A.3d 680. The physicians and the hospital argued in response that "because the plaintiffs did not allege that the physicians were acting outside the scope of their medical specialty of internal medicine, the exception under § 52-184c (c) did not apply, and the plaintiffs were thus obligated to obtain an opinion letter authored by a physician board certified in internal medicine." Id. This court agreed with the physicians and the hospital, determining that Mayer was not a "similar health care provider" because he was not board certified in internal medicine. Id., at 455, 185 A.3d 680.

This court further concluded that "the decedent was admitted to the hospital for ‘medical care and rehabilitation’ following a hip replacement, the actual surgical procedure having been performed at another hospital, by an independent surgeon. While under the ... care [of the physicians and the hospital], the decedent developed complications, which required treatment and diagnosis by the physicians. Although the physicians appear initially to have misdiagnosed the decedent's postoperative condition, nothing contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint or opinion letter suggests that the physicians were not acting as internists. In fact, the crux of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the physicians were negligent in their initial assessment of the decedent's condition, not that the physicians were negligent in performing a surgical procedure." Id., at 457, 185 A.3d 680. This court thus

concluded that "[b]ecause the plaintiffs here have not alleged that the physicians acted outside the scope of their specialty of internal medicine, the exception to the definition of similar health care provider in § 52-184c (c) does not apply. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were required to obtain an opinion letter from an expert who (1) had training and experience in internal medicine, and (2) was board certified in internal medicine." Id., at 459, 185 A.3d 680. This court, therefore, affirmed the judgment dismissing the action in Labissoniere I . Id.

In January, 2017, while Labissoniere I was pending in this court, the plaintiffs commenced the present action against the hospital, the physicians, and Sound Physicians. As previously noted, the plaintiffs’ complaint contains allegations that are substantially similar to those set forth in Labissoniere I . The plaintiffs also appended the same opinion letter authored by Mayer to the complaint, in which Mayer opined that the conduct of the hospital and the physicians fell below the applicable standard of care by failing to timely diagnose a retroperitoneal bleed in the decedent, conduct a CT scan

of the decedent, and transfer the decedent back to St. Francis Hospital. The plaintiffs also named Sound Physicians as a defendant and pleaded a count of negligence against it. The plaintiffs further alleged that the physicians were employed by both the hospital and Sound Physicians.

The plaintiffs again alleged that, on February 14, 2013, the decedent was admitted to the hospital for medical care following a previous hip replacement surgery performed at St. Francis Hospital. They further alleged that, while under the care of the defendants, the decedent developed a retroperitoneal hematoma

, which resulted in irreversible nerve damage. The plaintiffs alleged that the diagnosis and treatment of that hematoma and the decedent's postsurgical condition were within the specialty of surgery, and not within the specialty of internal medicine. They also alleged that "[t]he defendants

lacked the specialized training to determine whether the decedent needed intervention for treating the decedent's condition, a retroperitoneal hematoma

. The specialized training required was in the area of general surgery." Moreover, the plaintiffs alleged that neither the hospital nor Sound Physicians had a surgeon available for consultation by the physicians.

The plaintiffs alleged that the decedent's injuries were caused by the negligence of the physicians in failing, inter alia, to timely obtain a consultation with a surgeon, to perform diagnostic imaging, and to diagnose and treat the decedent's condition....