Page 30 - CLT102620

30 ¦ OCTOBER 26, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT both statutes. As such, the claim was time barred,
and the court upheld the dismissal.

CIVIL PROCEDURE • WRONGFUL DEATH APPELLATE COURT

Court Finds Wrongful Death Action CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
against State Must Comply with
Narrow Statute of Limitation Rules
Court Upholds Conclusion of Attorney
CASE: Harvey v. Dep’t of Corr. Fact Finder in Medicare Payment Claim
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20325
COURT OPINION BY: McDonald CASE: Silver Hill Hosp., Inc. v. Kessler
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DATE: October 09, 2020 • PAGES: 9 DOC. NO.: AC 42545
Decedent was incarcerated when he was diag- COURT OPINION BY: Elgo
nosed with cancer. Two years after his diagnosis, DATE: October 13, 2020 • PAGES: 10
he obtained authorization from the Claims Com- Plaintiff hospital provided inpatient and outpa-
missioner to sue the state for medical malprac- tient services to defendant over several months
tice, but then died while in custody. Subsequently, in 2014. Plaintiff billed Medicare, which initially
14 months after authorization from the Claims paid the entire sum owed, but rescinded cover-
Commissioner but 369 days after his death, plain- age for a portion of the medical expenses when
tiff brought a claim of wrongful death against the it found defendant had workers’ compensation
state on behalf of the decedent as administratrix. coverage. The defendant was told to, contact
The state moved to dismiss the claim, asserting Medicare to address the payment and cover-
the action was time barred because the authori- age dispute; she did not. In 2017, plaintiff com-
zation from the claims Commissioner had a one menced the underlying action to recover the
year statute of limitations under §4-160(d). Plain- unpaid expenses, and defendant filed a special
tiff argued that the time bar was inappropriate, defense of non compos mentis. The matter was
and the statute of limitations that should be ap- referred to an attorney fact finder, who presided
plied was two years under §52-555(a). The trial over a one day trial and found in favor of the
court granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate plaintiff for the remaining unpaid balance. The
court affirmed, and plaintiff appealed. The court trial court entered the judgment, and defendant
affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held appealed, arguing the attorney fact finder’s con-
that a statute in derogation of sovereign immu- clusions were not based on evidenced presented
nity such as §4-160(d) should be narrowly and at trial. The court found in favor of the plaintiff,
strictly construed, and therefore a plaintiff must and upheld the trial court’s decision, finding ad-
comply with the statute of limitations rules in equate evidence was presented to the fact finder

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune