Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth & Women's Center

Summary

This dissent would affirm the dismissal of the medical-malpractice action because the supporting opinion letter was authored by an obstetrician rather than a health care provider trained, experienced, and certified in nurse-midwifery or nursing. It reasons that the plain language of § 52-184c (c) requires both the same specialty and certification by the same appropriate American board, and that an obstetrician and nurse-midwife are separate professions despite practicing in a related field. The dissent also agrees that the opinion-letter requirement applies to claims against institutional defendants. The dissenting judges would therefore retain the prior statutory interpretation rather than silently displace it.