The Connecticut Appellate Court unanimously rejected Plaintiffs’ efforts to avoid the statute of limitations and upheld the trial court’s decision on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In response to timely motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs attempted to file an amended complaint “as of right” with a good faith letter of a similar health care provider that did not exist before the statute of limitations expired. Defendants objected to the untimely amendment. The trial court dismissed the case, in favor of defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Court found that there was no original opinion letter to “amend or substitute”, and such curative actions could not take place after the statute of limitations had expired. The Connecticut Supreme Court declined to review the Appellate Court’s decision. Attorney Diana M. Carlino appeared on behalf of the defendant physician. Barnes v. Greenwich Hospital, 207 Conn. App. 512 (2021).
Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516 (2014) – The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that since the defendant health care providers had “effective notice” of the suit within the statute of limitations, that it had been timely commenced for purposes of the savings statute. Attorneys Rosenblum and Carlino appeared on behalf of defendants Adobe and Carroll.
Davidson v. Rubinstein, MD, et al – On June 25, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) in favor of the defendants, holding that Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-146d and 52-146e must be read in light of the underlying purpose of the psychiatrist-patient privilege, i.e., the need to safeguard confidential communications or records of a patient seeking diagnosis and treatment so as to protect the therapeutic relationship. Thus, it is axiomatic that communications that bear no relationship to the purpose for which the privilege was enacted do not obtain shelter under the statute and are admissible under the normal rules of evidence.
Smith v. Andrews, 289 Conn. 61, 959 A.2d 597 (2008): Supreme Court affirmed defense verdict and rejected claims of failure to show compliance with “national” standard of care.
Russo v. Phoenix Internal Medicine Associates, PC, 109 Conn. App. 80, 87, 950 A.2d 559 (2008): Appellate Court affirmed defense verdict and ruled that cardiologist precluded from testifying about standard of care of internal medicine specialist.