Oberman v. Hillcrest Healthcare

Full title: LEATRICE R. OBERMAN, EXECUTOR ESTATE OF JACOB E. OBERMAN v. HILLCREST…

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London

Date published: Oct 19, 2005

2005 Ct. Sup. 13351 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

Opinion

No. CV 04 4000141

October 19, 2005

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS BASED UPON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF, INTER ALIA, PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS

CLARANCE J. JONES, JUDGE.

Plaintiff Leatrice Oberman brings this action against defendant Hillcrest Health Care Inc, doing business as Hillcrest Health Care Center, in which she alleges that the death of the late Jacob Oberman was caused by its improper care which ultimately resulted in his having a fatal infection. The complaint in this action contains four counts: 1) Count One is a claim under the Wrongful Death Statute; 2) Count Two articulates a claim for loss of consortium, incident to the wrongful death claim in Count One; 3) Count Three asserts a claim for violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 19-550, also known as the Patient's Bill of Rights; and 4) Count Four sets out a claim for loss of consortium incident to the claimed violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights articulated in Count Three.

The defendant has filed a Motion to Strike Counts Three and Four. The defendant argues that the wrongful death statute is the sole basis and provides the sole vehicle for obtaining money damages for injuries which result in death. The defendant cites the following quotation from Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg, Inc., 226 Conn. 282 (1993) as support for this proposition:

" The wrongful death statute; General Statutes Section 52-555; is the sole basis upon which an action that includes as an element of damages a person's death or its consequences can be brought."

CT Page 13351-ef

Id. at 295. Emphasis added. The defendant also cites several Superior Court opinions which follow this principle. Among them is the case of Fritz v. Veteran's Memorial Medical Center, 1998 Conn.Super LEXIS 3238, decided by Judge Moran. The Fritz case addressed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to death allegedly caused, inter alia, by a violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights, and for a loss of consortium. In Fritz the court stuck the Patient's Bill of Rights and derivative consortium claims for the reason that they were outside the provisions of the wrongful death statute.

For the foregoing reasons, and upon the foregoing authorities, the Motion to Strike Counts Three and Four of the Complaint is granted.

Clarance J. Jones, Judge CT Page 13351-eg