Page 34 - CLT060721

34 ■ JUNE 7, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
decision and after it was affirmed, defendants providers referred to them by their attorneys
withdrew the civil action. Plaintiffs filed this vex- because of their lack of adequate medical in-
atious litigation action against Perricone and her surance. The court found that they were en-
attorneys, alleging that the claims in the civil ac- titled to present that evidence to refute defen-
tion were identical to those in the dissolution ac- dants’ claim that their treatment may have been
tion. Defendants moved for summary judgment motivated not by pain, but for purposes of the
and the court granted the motion as to defendant litigation and establishing damages. The court
attorneys. Plaintiffs appealed and the court af- stated that defendants repeatedly emphasized
firmed. The court first held that the prior pend- the role of plaintiffs’ attorneys in selecting the
ing action doctrine did not apply and therefore doctors, and the court’s preclusion of evidence
did not prevent defendants from being entitled to that plaintiffs wanted to introduce to rehabili-
summary judgment as a matter of law. The fact tate their credibility likely affected the jury’s
that the civil action may have been subject to dis- verdict and was therefore harmful error.
missal under the doctrine did not make it inher-
ently vexatious, even if it were exactly or virtually
alike to the dissolution action. The court also SUPERIOR COURT
found that there was no genuine issue of material
fact as to whether defendants had probable cause
to continue the civil action following the dissolu- CIVIL PROCEDURE
tion decision.
Court Granted Third-Party’s Motion
PERSONAL INJURY • EVIDENCE To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal

Trial Court’s Preclusion of Plaintiffs’ Jurisdiction
Proffered Evidence Constituted CASE: Szarmach v. SL Rest. Group, LLC
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
Harmful Error DOC. NO.: CV-20-609-5806
CASE: McCrea v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court DATE: May 14, 2021 • PAGES: 4
DOC. NO.: AC 42985 In a March 2020 complaint, plaintiff alleged
COURT OPINION BY: Elgo he sustained severe auditory injuries as result
DATE: May 25, 2021 • PAGES: 17 of loud music played by defendant’s disc jock-
Plaintiffs sustained injuries when they were ey in the restaurant during dinner. In Sep-
rear ended by defendants. They sued to recover tember 2020, defendant tried to serve Robert
damages. Defendants filed a special defense al- Newbery, the disc jockey, alleging Newber-
leging that plaintiff Pettway was contributorily ry’s negligence. In October 2020, defendant
negligent. A jury returned a general verdict for moved to implead Newberry as a third party
defendants and the trial court found in their defendant. The court granted the motion and
favor. Plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the defendant was ordered to serve Newberry by
trial court improperly prevented them from tes- November 24, 2020. When Newberry was not
tifying. The court reversed and ordered a new served at that time, he moved to dismiss. De-
trial. The court first held that the trial court fendant served Newberry on December 29,
did not abuse its discretion when it allowed de- 2020. Newberry again moved to dismiss the
fendants’ attorney to question plaintiffs about complaint against him. Defendant objected.
their choice of medical providers from a list The court granted Newberry’s motion. Defen-
curated by their attorneys and about a lawsuit dant argued that Newberry suffered no preju-
that plaintiff McCrea had previously filed per- dice by their failure to comply with the court’s
taining to a prior car accident. The court rea- order and that the error was harmless because
soned that questioning plaintiffs about these he was eventually served, made aware of their
issues was relevant to defendants’ claims that claims, and the error had no impact on the
the testimony of plaintiffs’ doctors was biased scheduled trial date. The court did not agree.
and that plaintiffs’ lacked credibility. The court It stated that defendant failed to properly
then concluded that the trial court had errone- serve Newberry pursuant to the court order,
ously precluded plaintiffs from presenting evi- and therefore the court did not have personal
dence that they sought treatment from medical jurisdiction over Newberry.
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune