Wilcox v. Schwartz

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court considers whether a medical malpractice plaintiff's written opinion from a similar health care provider satisfied the detailed-basis requirement of Connecticut General Statutes § 52-190a(a). The court holds that the opinion was sufficient because it identified the applicable standard of care, stated that the standard was breached, and provided the factual basis that the defendant failed to prevent injury to the plaintiff's biliary structures during laparoscopic surgery. The court affirms the Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal.

Holdings

1. A written opinion satisfies the detailed-basis requirement when it states the similar health-care provider's opinion regarding the applicable standard of care, that the standard was breached, and the factual basis known to the provider for concluding that medical negligence occurred. The opinion in this case met that requirement.
2. Section 52-190a (a) does not always require a similar health-care provider to identify the precise act or omission that caused the injury. An opinion that the injury would not have occurred absent a breach of the standard of care can be sufficient, particularly when inadequate documentation makes the precise cause difficult to determine before discovery.
3. The court did not reach the defendants' separate claim that § 52-190a (c) requires dismissal when an attached opinion is insufficiently detailed because the opinion in this case was sufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the written opinion of a similar health-care provider satisfied the detailed-basis requirement of General Statutes § 52-190a (a).
2. Whether § 52-190a (a) requires the opinion to identify the precise negligent act or omission that caused the injury.
3. Whether the opinion was legally inadequate because it did not expressly state the standard of care in separate or more particularized terms.

Disposition

affirmed