Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; April 17, 1984; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
The plaintiff appeals a judgment favoring the defendant, asserting that her medical malpractice suit is barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the suit was filed more than two years after the injury's discovery. The plaintiff contends that the court erred in several respects: (1) a previous summary judgment motion was denied, establishing the law of the case, (2) the incorrect statute of limitations was applied, and (3) a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the discovery date of the injury.
The undisputed facts indicate that the plaintiff sustained injuries from a slip and fall on December 20, 1972, and was treated by the defendant, Dr. Allen Schlein. Following surgeries on the date of the accident and again on February 20, 1973, the plaintiff was informed in April 1973 of the need for further treatment. After seeking a second opinion, she underwent additional surgery on April 16, 1973. The plaintiff filed suit against Schlein on December 16, 1975, alleging negligence that led to further surgeries and suffering.
The defendant filed a new motion for summary judgment on June 22, 1982, similar to an earlier one denied in October 1978. The court, upon reviewing the new motion, found no genuine issue of fact regarding the timeliness of the suit and granted judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff argues that the denial of a previous summary judgment should have established the law of the case, though it is acknowledged that such rulings are not absolute and can be revisited by different judges. The appellate court emphasizes the importance of the correctness of the ruling over adherence to the law of the case.
Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations for implied contracts should apply instead of the malpractice statute, which mandates that actions for malpractice must be initiated within two years from when the injury is first sustained or discovered.
All malpractice actions are governed by General Statutes, 52-584, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that their claims fall within this statute's definition of malpractice. Malpractice is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of skill and care expected from professionals, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. The complaint in question fails to allege a breach of any contractual obligation by the defendant, focusing instead on a claimed lack of requisite care.
The court found that the defendant's affidavit and the plaintiff's deposition established that the plaintiff was aware of her injury before the lawsuit was filed. The defendant's affidavit stated that his last treatment of the plaintiff was on April 5, 1973, and the plaintiff acknowledged awareness of her leg issue when consulting another physician in April. Although the plaintiff expressed intent to sue prior to her third operation on April 16, 1973, she did not counter the defendant’s claims with any evidence.
For a summary judgment to be granted, the moving party must show that no genuine issues of material fact exist, which the court determined was satisfied in this case. The plaintiff's testimony confirmed that she discovered her injury in April 1973 but delayed filing her lawsuit until December 16, 1975, exceeding the two-year limit imposed by General Statutes, 52-584. Thus, the court concluded that no genuine dispute existed regarding the timeline, leading to the decision that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, with no errors found in that ruling.
General Statutes § 52-576 establishes a six-year statute of limitations for actions based on accounts, simple or implied contracts, and written contracts. General Statutes § 52-584 limits actions for personal injury, property damage due to negligence, or malpractice to two years from the date of injury or discovery, with a maximum of three years from the act or omission. Further, General Statutes § 1-1 mandates that statutory language be interpreted according to common usage and legal definitions.
In the plaintiff's complaint, she asserts that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care in physical therapy and surgical procedures, resulting in the necessity for corrective surgery and additional pain. During her deposition, the plaintiff recounts seeking a second opinion from Dr. Truchly after being advised by Dr. Schlein about the need for therapy and surgery. Dr. Truchly recommended an open reduction operation due to improper healing of her leg.
The plaintiff discussed the possibility of suing Dr. Schlein with her attorney before her April 15, 1973, surgery, but did not engage in similar discussions with Dr. Truchly. The plaintiff's counsel submitted an affidavit indicating that the lawsuit was delayed due to the inability to find a physician willing to assert that Dr. Schlein acted negligently. The counsel contended that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims only begins when a plaintiff obtains a physician's opinion on the occurrence of malpractice. However, the statute clearly states that the time frame for bringing an action commences upon the initial discovery of the injury, regardless of expert verification.
