Medical Malpractice / Opinion Letter Requirement | Similar Health Care Provider

The plaintiff brought a three-count malpractice action against Connecticut Orthopaedic Specialists and two physicians (a podiatrist and a radiologist) arising from treatment for tibialis posterior tendon problems, including multiple cortisone injections, delayed MRI, and a later tendon rupture requiring surgery. The defendants moved to dismiss counts one and three for failure to attach a proper “similar health care provider” opinion letter under General Statutes § 52-190a, arguing that a podiatrist could not support claims against a radiologist. The court held that a single opinion letter from a podiatrist sufficed to support claims involving podiatric care, but not the separate individual negligence claim against the radiologist; it denied the motion as to the vicarious-liability count but granted it as to the radiologist’s individual count, unless the plaintiff supplied a compliant letter within sixty days. At the same time, the court stressed—following Carpenter v. Daar—that § 52-190a is a “procedural device” to weed out frivolous suits, not a jurisdictional bar, and that defects in the opinion letter go to the sufficiency of the pleading, not the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. For claims professionals, this reinforces that med-mal filings with questionable opinion letters are not automatically nullities: courts may allow plaintiffs to cure defects, especially where at least some claims are supported, which affects early case-valuation and settlement strategy.  “For the following reasons, the motion is denied as to count one, and granted as to count three unless the plaintiff amends or supplements her complaint by submitting an appropriate opinion letter from a similar health care provider … within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision.” The court, quoting the Supreme Court, noted that the opinion-letter requirement is “a unique, statutory procedural device that does not implicate the court’s jurisdiction … [but] is a statutory device intended only to weed out frivolous medical malpractice suits by requiring plaintiffs to obtain a corroborating expert opinion prior to commencing a lawsuit.”  Stone v. Conn. Orthopaedic Specialists, P.C., No. NNH-CV-25-6150770-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 17, 2025).