Page 34 - CLT061520

34 ¦ JUNE 15, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

for all defendants. The defendants filed motions to PERSONAL INJURY
strike, arguing that the parties could not have made
substantive filings with the court before properly Court Entered Judgment Against
substituting a defendant for the recently deceased Defendant Insurance Company After
doctor. The court denied their motions. The court
found that the plaintiffs’ offers of compromise com- Unknown Driver Collided With Plaintiff
plied with all statutory requirements. However, the
court found that the executrix did not have an op- CASE: Goncalves v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.
portunity to respond to the offers of compromise COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
directed at the doctor, and therefore was granted an DOC. NO.: CV-15-6028864
extension to address them. COURT OPINION BY: Roraback
DATE: May 20, 2020 • PAGES: 11
Plaintiff sued defendant Hudobenko, a school
Statute of Limitations Barred bus driver, for negligence after defendant caused
his school bus to collide with plaintiff ’s car and
Malpractice Claim Based On Failure to another unknown driver. Plaintiff suffered se-
Diagnose Incipient Glaucoma rious and life-threatening injuries. The jury
found for the plaintiff and awarded economic
CASE: Veillette v. Opticare Eye Health Ctrs., Inc. and non-economic damages. Liability was al-
COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury located between Hudobenko and Utica, which
DOC. NO.: CV18-6044465 was responsible for the unknown driver under
COURT OPINION BY: Gordon the plaintiff ’s uninsured motorist policy. Plain-
DATE: May 15, 2020 • PAGES: 25
The court granted defendants’ motion for summa- tiff moved for judgment to be entered against
ry judgment, finding plaintiff’s medical malprac- the parties in proportion to the allocation of lia-
tice action to be time-barred. Defendants provided bility between the respective drivers as found by
plaintiff with optometry and ophthalmology ser- the jury. Plaintiff argued that judgment should
vices from November 17, 2008, through December be entered against Utica for the full amount of
8, 2014. During that time, defendants allegedly mis- damages that the jury allocated to the unidenti-
interpreted plaintiff’s “cup to disc” ratio, which was fied driver. The court agreed. It reasoned that
allegedly significantly greater than reported by de- forbidding the plaintiff to pursue re-allocation
fendants. A higher cup to disc ratio is allegedly in- just because the driver was unknown is contrary
dicative of optic nerve damage and potential glau- to public policy.
coma. On or about March 21, 2016, plaintiff was
allegedly diagnosed with severe glaucoma, which TRADE SECRETS • BUSINESS TORTS
ultimately left him legally blind. In November 2018,
plaintiff sued defendants for medical malpractice.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Evidence Utterly Inadequate to
that the action was time-barred. The court agreed, Support Any of Plaintiff’s Claims
finding that plaintiff’s action was barred by the
three-year statute of repose set forth in G.S. §52- CASE: Applied Advertising, Inc. v. Jacobs
584 unless he could establish an exception, which COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV15-6059689
he failed to do. First, defendants’ alleged refusal COURT OPINION BY: Peck
to provide plaintiff’s medical records, even if suf- DATE: May 20, 2020 • PAGES: 37
ficient to establish a violation of G.S. §20-7c, did The court rendered judgment after trial in favor
not operate to extend the limitations period for fil- of defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to ad-
ing a medical malpractice claim. Plaintiff’s reliance duce evidence sufficient to substantiate any of
on the continuing course of conduct doctrine was its trade secret and related claims against defen-
similarly unavailing. It was undisputed that plain- dants. After leaving his employ with plaintiff,
tiff was last treated by defendants in 2014. Further, defendant Ross Jacobs went to work for defen-
defendants provided plaintiff with routine eye ex- dants Candid Litho Printing, Ltd., and related
aminations only; they were not treating him for entities. He allegedly took with him plaintiff ’s
any ongoing medical condition, and there was no confidential client and vendor lists and used that
evidence that defendants were aware that plaintiff information to plaintiff ’s detriment. Plaintiff
had any medical condition that required ongoing sued defendants for trade secret misappropria-
treatment. for the same reason, plaintiff’s claim of tion and related claims. Following a trial that
fraudulent concealment was also unavailing. extended over all or part of 15 days, the court

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune