187 Conn. App. 405
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Anderson, a patient in the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital, alleged that on May 4, 2014 staffer Heather Madison closed a door on his hand and intentionally kicked his hand into the door, causing injury.
- He sued Madison and three other hospital employees in their individual capacities under the Connecticut Patients’ Bill of Rights (Gen. Stat. § 17a-540 et seq.).
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed claims against Dike, Ward‑McKinley, and Lazrove (ruling individual liability under § 17a-550/§ 4-165 is limited to wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct) but allowed the claim against Madison to proceed.
- Defendants later moved for summary judgment, submitting video stills, and affidavits (investigator, nurse, psychiatrist) disputing that the door ever closed on Anderson’s hand or that Madison kicked his hand, and showing no observed injury.
- Anderson opposed with an unsigned/unsworn affidavit and unauthenticated police reports; the trial court found this evidence inadmissible and granted summary judgment for all defendants.
- Anderson appealed, challenging (1) the grant of summary judgment, (2) denial of his jury trial request, and (3) denial of appointed counsel; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine factual dispute existed about Madison injuring Anderson | Anderson argued his affidavit and police reports show Madison intentionally injured him | Defendants argued video stills and investigative/nurse/psychiatrist affidavits negate the alleged incident and show no injury | Court held defendants met burden; Anderson’s affidavit was unsworn and police reports unauthenticated, so no admissible evidence raised a genuine dispute; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether denial of jury trial was erroneous | Anderson requested a jury trial | Defendants relied on summary judgment disposition | Not reached on merits—court need not address jury claim after proper summary judgment |
| Whether court erred in denying appointment of counsel for indigent confined patient | Anderson argued indigence and confinement warranted counsel appointment | Defendants noted no statutory right to appointed counsel in civil Patients’ Bill of Rights actions | Court held no statutory exception exists; appointment of counsel not required; denial proper |
| Whether individual state employees (other than for wanton/reckless/malicious conduct) are liable under Patients’ Bill of Rights | Anderson sued multiple employees individually | Defendants argued § 17a-550 and § 4-165 limit individual liability to wanton/reckless/malicious acts; others’ allegations did not plead such conduct | Trial court correctly dismissed claims against Dike, Ward‑McKinley, Lazrove because allegations did not plausibly allege recklessness; only Madison survived initial dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 (summary judgment standard and plenary review)
- Viola v. O’Dell, 108 Conn. App. 760 (unsigned/unsworn affidavit is of no evidentiary value)
- Nash v. Stevens, 144 Conn. App. 1 (documents must be authenticated to be considered on summary judgment)
- Gianetti v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, 111 Conn. App. 68 (methods for authenticating documents for summary judgment)
- Kaka‑delis v. DeFabritis, 191 Conn. 276 (summary judgment eliminates need for trial when no real issue remains)
- Kennedy v. Putman, 97 Conn. App. 815 (general rule: court‑appointed counsel not available in civil proceedings)
- Small v. State, 101 Conn. App. 213 (statutory exceptions to appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- State v. Anderson, 319 Conn. 288 (background on plaintiff’s prior adjudication and confinement)