133 Conn. App. 182
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Golek, a senior surgical resident at Saint Mary's Hospital, was not promoted to chief resident in 2007.
- Dudrick, the surgical residency program director, advised Golek would repeat PGY5 due to poor ABSITE scores.
- Golek declined the renewal and left the hospital after completing his current contract.
- Golek sued the hospital, Dudrick, and ACGME, asserting contract breach, tortious interference, fiduciary breach, and third-party beneficiary claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dudrick and ACGME; a jury then favoring the hospital led to appeals on multiple issues.
- Key issues concern jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the viability of each defendant's liability under contract, tort, fiduciary, and third-party beneficiary theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil burden of proof instruction proper | Golek contends the instruction conformed to criminal standard. | Hospital argues instructions properly conveyed civil standard. | Court held the civil standard instruction was proper. |
| Evidentiary rulings preserved error | Golek claims prejudicial abuse of discretion for several exclusions. | Hospital contends rulings were within discretion and nonprejudicial. | Court found no reversible evidentiary abuse; rulings affirmed. |
| Tortious interference against Dudrick | Dudrick's remarks caused loss via denied Greenwich Hospital privileges. | No actual loss established; statements did not causally injure plaintiff. | Summary judgment for Dudrick affirmed; no actual loss shown. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty against Dudrick | Dudrick owed fiduciary duty as program director to promote plaintiff. | No fiduciary relationship existed; control was teacher-student in nature. | Summary judgment affirmed; no fiduciary duty found. |
| Third-party beneficiary claim against ACGME | ACGME's accreditation contract intended to benefit residents like Golek. | No intent to create direct obligations to plaintiff; not a party to contract. | Summary judgment affirmed; no third-party contractual right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians & Surgeons, P.C., 254 Conn. 131 (Conn. 2000) (standard for evaluating jury instructions—entire charge governs)
- PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279 (Conn. 2004) (improper burden-of-proof instruction may be reversible error)
- State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364 (Conn. 1983) (holistic review of jury charge; not dissecting phrases in isolation)
- Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390 (Conn. 1981) (approval of civil jury instruction wording for burden of proof)
- Murphy v. Wakelee, 247 Conn. 396 (Conn. 1998) (fiduciary-duty concepts in identifying relationships)
- Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293 (Conn. 1998) (test for third-party beneficiary rights and intent of contract parties)
- Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., 264 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2003) (third-party beneficiary foreseeability and contract-intent requirements)