On December 17, 2015, pursuant to § 4-160 (b), the plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the claims commissioner, seeking permission to sue the state for medical malpractice, both individually and in her representative capacity as administratrix of the decedent’s estate. In the notice of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the employees and agents of the state caused the decedent’s injuries by departing from the applicable standard of care. The plaintiff also submitted a physician’s opinion letter to the claims commissioner, which described the physician’s reasons for concluding that the state had failed to meet the appropriate standard of care relating to the decedent’s medical treatment.
General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-159a (a) provides: ‘‘Not later than five days after the convening of each regular session, the Office of the Claims Commissioner shall report to the General Assembly on all claims that have been filed with the Office of the Claims Commissioner pursuant to section 4-147 and have not been disposed of by the Office of the Claims Commissioner within two years of the date of filing or within any extension thereof granted by the General Assembly pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, except claims in which the parties have stipulated to an extension
of time for the Office of the Claims Commissioner to dispose of the claim.’’
On February 27, 2018, the claims commissioner sent a letter to the plaintiff notifying her of, and apologizing to her for, the failure to resolve her claim within two years of its filing. In a separate letter, the claims commissioner also informed the plaintiff that, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-159a (a), the commissioner had reported the plaintiff’s unresolved claim to the General Assembly. On May 9, 2018, pursuant to § 4-159a (c), the General Assembly granted the claims commissioner an extension for a period of one year from that date to dispose of the plaintiff’s claim.
The claims commissioner failed to dispose of the claim within that one year extension. Instead, on November 25, 2020, approximately eighteen months after the one year extension had expired, the claims commissioner concluded that the plaintiff’s claim had satisfied the requirements of § 4-160 (b) and consequently granted the plaintiff’s request for permission to sue the state for medical malpractice. The state took no action to challenge that decision before the
claims commissioner.
The plaintiff subsequently filed the Connecticut medical malpractice action. The state moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the waiver of sovereign immunity issued by the claims commissioner pursuant to § 4-160 (b) was not valid. The state asserted that the waiver was invalid for two reasons: (1) it was issued after the expiration of the one year extension granted by the General Assembly pursuant to § 4-159a(c); and (2) the plaintiff failed to file with the claims commissioner an opinion letter from a ‘‘ ‘similar health care provider,’ ’’ as required by General Statutes § 52-190a (a). The trial court granted the state’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court stated in its December 17, 2024 opinion: “As this court previously has recognized, the waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity ‘‘is a matter for legislative, not judicial, determination.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542, 558, 534 A.2d 888 (1987). We conclude that the current appeal is controlled by our recent decision in Lynch v. State, 348 Conn. 478, 501–504, 308 A.3d 1 (2024), and that, to the extent that the state disputed the authority of the claims commissioner to authorize suit beyond the one year extension of time granted by the legislature, it was incumbent on it to raise that issue before the claims commissioner while the matter was still under the commissioner’s review.”
“§ 4-160 (b) conveys the legislature’s intent to waive sovereign immunity with respect to all medical malpractice claims filed with the claims commissioner that are accompanied by a good faith certificate … the state’s challenge to the plaintiff’s claims does not concern whether the claims fall within the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity granted by the claims commissioner. Indeed, here, they clearly do. It is undisputed that the activities complained of in the present case, and for which the claims commissioner granted permission to sue, were ‘‘acts of alleged medical negligence’’ that were squarely within the scope of the waiver. Therefore, once the claims commissioner authorized suit in the present case, the state waived all defenses to the decision of the claims commissioner; see, e.g., Lynch v. State, supra, 348 Conn. 493, 501; and that decision was insulated from collateral attack. See, e.g., id., 503–504. Thus, we conclude that, if the state disputed the authority of the claims commissioner to issue permission to sue past the one year extension granted by the legislature, the state should have raised this claim before the claims commissioner. Its failure to do so is fatal to its claim. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court improperly granted the state’s motion to dismiss.”
Source Marland v. University of Connecticut Health Center, SC 20854.
If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of medical malpractice in Connecticut or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Connecticut medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
