181 Conn. App. 201
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Sandhya Desmond, a Yale-New Haven Hospital employee, was injured at work in 2004 and pursued workers’ compensation benefits; she alleges defendants delayed and obstructed treatment, worsening her condition.
- She previously sued and in Desmond I (138 Conn. App. 93) the appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding the alleged conduct fell within the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction and was not sufficiently egregious to avoid exclusivity.
- In the present case Desmond filed an amended complaint (ten counts alleging statutory theft §52-564, fraud, CUTPA, breach of contract, statutory negligence); the trial court struck it as barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Desmond then filed a substitute complaint (adding ~41 pages) and sought leave to amend again to add an explicit retaliatory discrimination claim under §31-290a (the proposed amended complaint contained eleven counts, including the §31-290a count).
- The trial court held the substitute complaint was not materially different from the stricken complaint, overruled objections, dismissed the substitute complaint, and denied leave to amend; on appeal the appellate court (AC 39157) affirmed dismissal but reversed as to denial of leave to amend because the trial court considered the wrong document when ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding claims (including statutory theft §52-564) were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act | Desmond: her added allegations (in substitute complaint) cured prior defects and alleged conduct sufficiently egregious or outside the compensation process to avoid exclusivity; statutory theft is not within Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction | Defs: all claims arise from and are intrinsic to the workers’ compensation process and thus fall within Commission exclusivity; substitute complaint is materially similar to stricken complaint | Not reviewed on merits — appellate court declined to consider because Desmond failed to brief/establish that the substitute complaint was materially different from the stricken complaint (issue inadequately briefed) |
| Whether the substitute complaint was materially different from the stricken amended complaint (impacting waiver of right to appeal prior striking) | Desmond: substitute added factual allegations and legal detail sufficient to remedy defects and show egregious conduct/intent | Defs: substitute merely restates prior allegations and fails to cure pleading defects; trial court correctly found no material difference | Appellate court declined to review this claim because plaintiff’s brief did not adequately argue or demonstrate the differences; claim inadequately briefed |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add a §31-290a retaliatory discrimination claim | Desmond: sought leave to add an explicit §31-290a count (proposed amended complaint had 11 counts) and relief under §31-290a; amendment would not be futile | Defs: amendment untimely, prejudicial, and futile (similar claim already brought before the commission/other actions) | Reversed as to this point — trial court abused discretion because it denied leave after considering the wrong pleading (it considered the 10‑count substitute complaint rather than the 11‑count proposed amended complaint); remanded for further proceedings on the motion to amend |
| Whether dismissal and other rulings violated equal protection or were moot due to other §31-290a actions | Desmond: court misapplied law; claims not moot | Defs: other actions render claim moot; court followed precedent | Equal protection claim rejected as improper label for legal error; mootness rejected because appellate relief remains available; no relief on these auxiliary arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- DeOliveira v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 487 (2005) (egregious conduct exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity analyzed)
- Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc., 138 Conn. App. 93 (2012) (prior appellate decision in same matter; claims fell within commission exclusivity)
- Lund v. Milford Hosp., Inc., 326 Conn. 846 (2017) (amended pleading that follows a strike waives prior ruling unless substitute complaint is materially different)
- State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (2016) (briefing rules: issues not adequately briefed may be declined by appellate court)
- Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1 (2018) (standard and discretion for allowing amendments under Practice Book §10-60)