Di Teresi v. Stamford Health System, Inc., 63 A.3d 1011

Santina Di Teresi, a 92-year-old with dementia, was sexually assaulted by a hospital employee at Stamford Hospital on March 23, 2004; evidence collection was compromised after linens were washed and gown discarded.
Virginia Di Teresi, Santina's daughter and powers of attorney holder, arrived at the hospital around 2–2:30 p.m. and observed Santina distressed but did not know of the assault until later that day.
Hospital staff discussed how to respond, consulted risk management, HR, and security, and then sought outside counsel to advise on obtaining Mayes' statement, reporting to police, and conducting a rape examination.
The Stamford Police were contacted around 4:30 p.m.; a rape kit was performed on Santina about 9 p.m.; Virginia was told the details around 5–5:30 p.m., causing her emotional distress.
Virginia sued in 2006 for multiple claims including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, recklessness, CUTPA, and breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital on Virginia’s claims.
On appeal, the court affirmed that summary judgment, addressing five of Virginia's claims and distinguishing Santina’s claims from Virginia's personal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to promptly inform Virginia of the assault	Di Teresi argues hospital owed a duty to inform Virginia sooner.	Stamford Hospital contends no such duty due to public policy and competing interests.	No duty to report promptly; public policy defense sustains judgment.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress	Delay and concealment caused severe distress to Virginia.	Delay was not extreme or outrageous conduct intended to cause distress.	Action dismissed; conduct not extreme and outrageous.
Common-law recklessness	Delay evidence shows reckless disregard for Virginia's rights.	Delay does not amount to reckless disregard.	No reckless disregard; claim failed.
CUTPA claim	Delay in information constitutes unfair trade practice.	No duty to report promptly; no CUTPA violation.	CutPA claim fails due to lack of duty and policy considerations.
Breach of fiduciary duty	Hospital breached fiduciary duty to Virginia as attorney-in-fact and patient’s guardian.	No fiduciary relationship with Virginia; even if existed, no breach shown.	Summary judgment proper; no fiduciary duty shown or actionable breach.

Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392 (Conn. 1988) (foreseeability and duty in emotional distress claims; limits on recognition)
Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433 (Conn. 2003) (extreme and outrageous standard for IIED; thoroughness of investigation)
Sherwood v. Danbury Hospital, 278 Conn. 163 (Conn. 2006) (fiduciary duty and hospital-patient relations; physician-not-hospital duty)
Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 678 (Conn. 2012) (restraint in extending health-care provider duties to nonpatients)
Ward v. Greene, 267 Conn. 539 (Conn. 2004) (public policy limits on reporting emergencies and liability)
Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (Conn. 1998) (public policy considerations in duty to disclose or report)
Hollister v. Thomas, 110 Conn. App. 695 (Conn. App. 2010) (duty to promptly report emergencies; public policy considerations)
Elliott v. Waterbury, 245 Conn. 385 (Conn. 1998) (definition of recklessness and when conduct crosses threshold)
Dumond v. Denehy, 145 Conn. 88 (Conn. 1958) (recklessness requires more than mere negligence)