ARTICLE
29 September 2022

Personal Jurisdiction - Medical Malpractice

MM
Morrison Mahoney LLP

Contributor

Morrison Mahoney LLP
Mitchell v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, 2022 WL 3644130 (August 24, 2022).
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Mitchell v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, 2022 WL 3644130 (August 24, 2022).  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant medical institutions conducted medical tests showing the plaintiff's decedent had parasites, but failed to treat the decedent for parasite infestation, and instead treated the decedent for cancer. The plaintiff further alleged that if the decedent had been treated for parasite infestation, she would have survived and made a full recovery.  The plaintiff brought causes of action for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium.  The defendants challenged personal jurisdiction by way of a motion to dismiss – arguing that the plaintiff's opinion letter pursuant to C.G.S. § 52-190a failed to identify any individual  who allegedly committed medical malpractice. The Court agreed, explaining the Supreme Court precedent that medical malpractice can only be committed through the acts or omissions of medical professionals.  Therefore, when an action seeks to hold a medical institution vicariously liable for the malpractice of its agents or employees, the § 52-190a letter must identify at least one agent of the medical institution that committed the alleged malpractice. The Court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss following review of the § 52-190a letter which identified the institutional defendant as medically negligent.  The plaintiff also alleged a lack of informed consent. The Court however, construed these allegations “broadly and realistically” and agreed with the defendants that the counts alleging lack of informed consent were truly claims for medical negligence and suffered from the same deficiency as the medical negligence counts. Finally, the Court dismissed the loss of consortium claim as loss of consortium is a derivative action that cannot survive on its own.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
29 September 2022

Personal Jurisdiction - Medical Malpractice

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Morrison Mahoney LLP
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More