Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C., 325 Conn. 198

Summary

Justice Robinson concurs in the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision affirming the Appellate Court’s ruling that the plaintiff should have been permitted to amend his medical malpractice complaint to substitute a negligent-retractor theory for the originally pleaded negligent-skull-clamp theory. The concurrence discusses the appropriate standard of appellate review for relation-back determinations, distinguishing plenary review of pleading interpretation from abuse-of-discretion review for fairness, delay, and proof-related considerations.

Holdings

1. The interpretation of the original and proposed pleadings in determining whether an amendment relates back presents a question of law subject to plenary review. When the analysis also requires evaluation of fairness, prejudice, delay, the nature of the proof, or the types of evidence and experts, those discretionary aspects may be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
2. The plaintiff's amendment was properly permitted because the appeal, as presented, involved the legal comparison of the pleadings rather than discretionary considerations concerning timing or the nature of the proof, and the majority's relation-back analysis was consistent with Connecticut precedent.

Questions Presented

1. What standard of appellate review applies to a trial court's determination whether an amended complaint relates back for statute-of-limitations purposes?
2. Whether the trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to substitute a negligent-retractor-blade theory for the originally pleaded negligent-skull-clamp theory.

Disposition

affirmed