Page 40 - CLT020121

40 ¦ FEBRUARY 1, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Plaintiff was a patient of defendant’s den- negligence. The court held that plaintiff moth-
tal practice. The defendant dentist removed er properly asserted a claim for negligent in-
a healing cap in anticipation of installing a fliction of emotional distress. The court de-
dental implant in her upper jaw, however the nied defendants’ motion to strike, concluding
implant cracked, and the staff was unable to that defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to not
locate the healing cap. As a result of the de- cause in-utero and delivery harm to her child,
fendant’s conduct, plaintiff had to submit to citing the foreseeability of emotional harm to a
alternative treatment and undergo surgery to mother resulting from harm to her child, either
remove gum tissue, as well as allegedly suf- while in utero or during delivery.
fering pain and emotional distress. Plaintiff
brought a negligence action for medical mal-
practice, and defendants moved to dismiss PREMISES LIABILITY

arguing the opinion letter attached to the Summary Judgment Granted in Slip
complaint did not contain sufficient infor- and Fall Where Defendant did not yet
mation to demonstrate the author’s qualifi-
cations. The court found the opinion letter
was void of any references to the author’s Own Property in Question

experience, licensure, or qualifications. The CASE: Wiggins v. Henry Urena Serv., LLC
court therefore granted defendant’s motion COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
to dismiss. DOC. NO.: CV-18-6078768
COURT OPINION BY: Stevens
DATE: January 11, 2021 • PAGES: 6
Medical Practitioner Owed Duty to
Plaintiff brought a negligence claim against
Mother to Exercise Reasonable Care in defendants Henry Urena Services, 4890 Main,
Prenatal and Delivery Management of and AJV under the theory of premises liability,
Her Child after she slipped and fell due to an accumula-
tion of ice and snow in a parking lot possessed
or controlled by the defendants in 2017. Defen-
CASE: Gambacorta v. Williams dant AJV moved for summary judgment, argu-
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford ing it owed no duty to remove the ice or snow
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6077609 from the premises because it had not yet ac-
COURT OPINION BY: Noble quired ownership of the property at the time of
DATE: January 08, 2021 • PAGES: 11
The court had to determine whether an act of the fall, and therefore did not possess or con-
medical negligence during prenatal care or de- trol the property. In support of their motion,
livery that causes injury to the child is a breach AJV presented an affidavit and evidence of the
of duty owed to the mother so that she may re- quit claim deed that they did not begin to own
cover for the negligent infliction of emotional the property until 2018, several months after
distress. The court concluded that a medical the fall. The court found the evidence was suf-
practitioner owes a duty to the mother to ex- ficient to establish ownership, and granted de-
ercise reasonable care in the prenatal and de- fendant AJV’s motion for summary judgment.
livery management of the child. The mother
and minor plaintiff, then in utero, came under PRIVACY • CONTRACTS
defendants’ service for prenatal and delivery
medical care. The minor plaintiff alleged that
defendants, a physician and Ellington Obstet- Employee’s Accessing Medical Records
rics and Gynecology Associates, breached the and Revealing Confidential Information
standard of care during the prenatal care and Does Not Support Vicarious Liability
delivery of the child, who suffered various in- Claim
juries during the course of his delivery. De-
fendants also allegedly negligently performed CASE: Doe v. Danbury Hosp.
during delivery various maneuvers designed COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury
to release the baby’s shoulder while simultane- DOC. NO.: CV-19-5015760
ously pulling with excessive force on the child’s COURT OPINION BY: Brazzel-Massaro
head, resulting in a permanent injury to his left DATE: January 12, 2021 • PAGES: 12
arm. The mother contended that she suffered Plaintiff sued defendants Danbury Hospital
emotional distress as a result of defendants’ and Western Connecticut Health Network as

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune