The Superior Court granted DL’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Court of the Complaint against an attorney and his law firm alleging violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§42-110a at seq. The Court held that CUTPA covers only the entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of the profession of law. “The non-commercial aspects of lawyering – that is, the representation of the client in a legal capacity – should be excluded for public policy reasons.” Because the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim clearly and unequivocally involved the representational and not the entrepreneurial aspects of the defendant’s legal practice, summary judgment was appropriate. Stuart Johnson represented the defendants.
Plaintiff failed to identify appropriate expert witnesses and to diligently prosecute a case against a geriatrician who had provided care and treatment to a patient in a nursing/rehabilitation facility. Immediately following argument of a Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff withdrew the case against the geriatrician. Andrew Wildstein represented the defendant. (2018)
The plaintiff alleged a traumatic brain injury related to an alleged delay in diagnosis of a shunt malfunction. The plaintiff presented to the ER for altered mental status and hydrocephalus. In the absence of any baseline films, an early CT was interpreted as consistent with chronic hydrocephalus. A subsequent MRI two days later suggested an acute hydrocephalus. The plaintiff’s condition deteriorated and was subsequently diagnosed with a probable shunt malfunction. The jury found that the physician did not deviate from the prevailing standard of care for neuroradiologists. Bob Kiley represented the defendant.
A Superior Court judge granted motions to dismiss on the grounds that the opinion letter attached to the complaint was legally insufficient under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-190a because it did not satisfy the “detailed basis” requirement of the statute as to the physician and because it was not written by a “similar health care provider” as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-184c as to the nurse. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint to cure the defects because the request was not made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Bob Kiley and Tom Plumridge represented the defendants. (2018)
The plaintiff claimed that a neurosurgeon failed to identify and recognize the alleged medial placement of a pedicle screw in a lumbar procedure, resulting in a foot drop, pain, loss of sensation and weakness in the lower extremity. The plaintiff failed to disclose an expert to support the allegations of negligence. The Court granted our motion for summary judgement on behalf of the neurosurgeon. Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2018)
Plaintiff alleged that defendant hospital failed to assess appropriately a patient and institute a psychiatric hold. Plaintiff further alleged that the hospital negligently discharged the patient who went on to commit suicide. The Arbitrator concluded that the hospital complied with the standard of care in assessing and treating the patient. Neil Danaher and Ed Mayer represented the hospital. (2018)
Plaintiff claimed the defendant anesthesiologist failed to appropriately intubate and anesthetize the patient who underwent general anesthesia for foot procedure. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injury to her cervical spine, phrenic nerve and right hemi-diaphragm paralysis. The Arbitrator found in favor of the anesthesiologist. Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2018)
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-190a, a Superior Court judge granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to attach to the complaint a sufficient written opinion of a “similar health care provider.” Because the count at issue did not assert that the hospital staff was board certified or held themselves out as specialists, the author of the opinion letter was required to meet the requirements of §52-184c(b) for a “similar health care provider.” The letter failed to comply with the requirement that the author is trained and experienced in the same discipline or practice and such training and experience was the result of active involvement in the practice or teaching or medicine within the five year period before the incident giving rise to the claim. Neil Danaher and Tom Plumridge represented the hospital. (2018)
On December 18, 2018, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the grant of the psychologist’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the trial court (Elgo, J.) correctly concluded that allegedly defamatory statements made by psychologist in connection with post-marriage dissolution proceedings were part a judicial function and, thus, the statements were protected by absolute immunity. Ravalese v. Lertora, 18 Conn. App. 722 (2018). The Court determined that “it is clear from the facts set forth in the defendant’s affidavit that the purpose of her report was to aid the guardian ad litem and the court in the Ravelese’ continuing custody matter. . . .” Id. at 732.
On May 15, 2018, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the grant of the hospital’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the trial court (Shapiro, J.) correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of §52-190a(a) because the opinion letter attached to the plaintiff’s complaint did not set forth the professional qualifications of the author and was thus legally insufficient. Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 182 Conn. App. 1 (2018). The Appellate Court also affirmed Judge Shapiro’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her complaint to add to the opinion letter the author’s professional qualifications because it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Sally Hagerty and Ilyssa Kelson represented the defendant hospital.
