Opinion
AC 33066
01-20-2012
CHARLES D. GIANETTI, M.D. v. JOSEPH LUCIAN GERARDI
Charles D. Gianetti, pro se, for the appellant (plaintiff). Joseph L. Gerardi, pro se, for the appellee (defendant).
The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ''officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ''officially released'' date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Lavine, Beach and Espinosa, Js.
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Bellis, J.)
Charles D. Gianetti, pro se, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph L. Gerardi, pro se, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The self-represented plaintiff, Charles D. Gianetti, a physician, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the self-represented defendant, Joseph Lucian Gerardi, an attorney licensed to practice in Connecticut. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the report of an attorney trial referee (referee) and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis of the report. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant sounding in breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Pursuant to Practice Book § 19-2A, the action was referred to a referee. Following a hearing, the referee issued a report. See Practice Book § 19-8. The referee found that the plaintiff provided medical and surgical treatment to a child who had sustained severe dog bite injuries. The plaintiff submitted a bill, which was found to be reasonable and customary, to the child's mother and to the insurance carrier of the dog's owner. The plaintiff did not submit his bill to the defendant, who represented the child's interests in an action against the dog's owner. The plaintiff was never paid for the services he rendered to the child.
The referee also found that ''[t]he defendant requested medical records and bill from the plaintiff. . . . The plaintiff indicated to the defendant, individually and through counsel, that he would only supply the bill and medical information if he received a letter of protection from the defendant. . . . The defendant indicated to [the] plaintiff that if [the] plaintiff sent his bill, he would submit it to the insurance company and provide a letter of protection for any reasonable bill to the extent that it was not paid by said insurance carrier. . . . There was never a meeting of the minds between [the] plaintiff and [the] defendant on the issues of payment or the supplying of medical information and a bill.'' The referee recommended that judgment enter in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff objected to the report. In a memorandum of decision, the court overruled the plaintiff's objection and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.
Our examination of the record, briefs and arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the court should be affirmed. The court's memorandum of decision is thorough and well reasoned; we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues raised. See Gianetti v. Gerardi, 52 Conn. Sup. 207, A.3d (2010). No useful purpose would be served by repeating the discussion contained therein. See Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997). The judgment is affirmed.