Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C.

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to substitute a negligent-retractor theory for the originally pleaded negligent-skull-clamp theory, and therefore agrees with affirmance of the Appellate Court's judgment. It separately argues that relation-back review should be divided between plenary review of pleadings-based legal interpretation and abuse-of-discretion review of fairness-sensitive matters such as delay, prejudice, and the nature of the proof. Because the defendants did not challenge the amendment on discretionary fairness grounds, the concurrence concludes that plenary review is appropriate in this case.