Page 33 - CLT102620

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS OCTOBER 26, 2020 ¦ 33

Defendant, a licensed healthcare provider, DAMAGES
provided chiropractic treatment for plaintiff ’s
lower back. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Court Grants Defendant’s Motions to
applied a pain-relieving gel on her back that Open Judgment and for Remittitur
resulted in a burn. She was granted a 90-day
extension before the two-year statute of limi- CASE: Goncalves v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.
tations ran and fifty-three days before the ex- COURT: Waterbury J.D.
tension expired, she filed a negligence lawsuit. DOC. NO.: CV-15-6028864
Defendant filed a motion for summary judg- COURT OPINION BY: Roraback
ment and the court denied it. Defendant ar- DATE: October 02, 2020 • PAGES: 15
gued that the plaintiff ’s extension of the stat-
The court previously entered a judgment in
favor of plaintiff in the amount of several mil-
ute of limitations did not apply to her cause lion dollars. The court addressed the alloca-
of action for lack of informed consent. The tion of the damages in this opinion. The court
court disagreed, finding that applicable Gen- found that defendant Utica Mutual Insurance
eral Statutes applied to claims of lack of in- Company’s contractual obligation to plaintiff
formed consent as well as claims of medical has been satisfied and that the judgment against
negligence. Because plaintiff ’s service of pro- Utica would be reduced to zero. It was also
cess was fifty-three days before the running of undisputed that plaintiff did all in his power
the extended statute of limitations, the court to collect from Utica and was unable to collect
denied defendant’s motion. any of the economic or noneconomic damages
that the jury found were caused by the party for
whose wrongdoing Utica’s insurance policy pro-
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS • vided coverage. For those reasons, the court also

REAL ESTATE granted Utica’s motions to open judgment and
motion for remittitur and ordered that plain-
Judgment of Foreclosure Entered Even tiff’s verdict against Utica be remitted to $0.
Though Creditor Did Not Have Physical
Possession of the Notes DISCOVERY • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

CASE: USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Fredericks Court Sustained Defendants’
COURT: New Haven J.D.
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6072804 Objections to Document Production,
COURT OPINION BY: Blue Finding Documents Protected by Peer
DATE: September 28, 2020 • PAGES: 7
defendants Review Privilege
Plaintiff alleged that in 2006,
signed two notes payable to USAA. Each note CASE: Fotovat v. St. Vincent’s Multispecialty Group, Inc.
was secured by a separate mortgage on the real COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
property. Plaintiffs alleged that the notes were DOC. NO.: CV-19-6090603
in default by virtue of nonpayment, and filed COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs
a complaint seeking foreclosure. The court DATE: October 07, 2020 • PAGES: 8
entered a judgment of foreclosure. The court
found plaintiff established a prima facie case Plaintiff, a general surgeon, alleged that defen-
on their equitable foreclosure action. It held dants suspended him from his operating privi-
that just because USAA could not produce leges and denied him the ability to see patients.
the notes did not prevent it from pursuing the He sued in a multi-count complaint and asked
action. The court rejected defendants’ first the court to order defendants to stop making
special defense that there was a written agree- false accusations about his performance. Plain-
tiff served defendants with interrogatories and
requests for production and defendants object-
ment to refinance the subject loans, because ed, claiming peer review privilege on most. The
the evidence failed to establish the existence court conducted an in camera review of those
of any agreement. Defendants’ second spe- documents for which defendants claimed the
cial defense also failed because even though privilege. The court held that defendants met
USAA lost the notes, they still had standing their burden to show that the documents were
to bring the action. privileged and exempt from discovery as reflect-

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune