166 Conn. App. 432
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Helen Marsala, 76, became comatose after complications from wrist surgery and was transferred to Yale-New Haven Hospital on life support; family (husband Clarence and five children) repeatedly objected to permanent removal of ventilator.
- Hospital’s Bioethics Committee, supported by an independent pulmonologist, recommended no escalation of care and a transition to comfort care with a Do Not Reintubate order; ventilator was removed July 24, 2010, and Helen died the same day.
- Plaintiffs (Helen’s five children) sued Yale-New Haven Hospital alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (plus other counts); Clarence separately pursued wrongful death, malpractice and related claims.
- Trial court (Judge Lee) granted Hospital’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ negligent infliction of emotional distress counts for failure to plead contemporaneous sensory perception required for bystander claims and reliance on Maloney v. Conroy bar; Judge Tyma later granted summary judgment for the Hospital on plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress counts as bystander claims barred by Maloney.
- Plaintiffs appealed (AC 37822) arguing their claims were direct, not bystander, and that Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital changed the law; appellate court considered whether claims were properly characterized as bystander claims and whether pleading/summary judgment standards were satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded direct negligent infliction of emotional distress or bystander claims | Plaintiffs: allegations create a direct duty to follow family wishes and therefore a direct emotional-distress claim | Hospital: pleadings show duty and conduct were toward patient (Helen), so claims are bystander in nature | Court: Pleadings properly characterized as bystander claims because the duty was owed to Helen, not plaintiffs |
| Whether public policy or statutes impose a duty on hospital to relatives such that direct claims lie | Plaintiffs: Hospital should have foreseen emotional harm to family and owed them a duty | Hospital: §19a-571 and precedent show duty runs to patient; public policy disfavors extending duty to bystanders | Court: No legally recognized duty to relatives; statute and policy foreclose direct-duty theory |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied Clohessy / Squeo contemporaneous-observation requirement for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress | Plaintiffs: Squeo altered the landscape and allows some bystander recovery; their pleadings suffice | Hospital: Plaintiffs did not witness removal or arrive before substantial change; no contemporaneous sensory perception or evidence of gross negligence observed | Court: Plaintiffs failed to allege or produce evidence of contemporaneous observation of the ventilator removal or gross negligence; Clohessy/Squeo requirements unmet; motion to strike properly granted |
| Whether bystander intentional infliction of emotional distress survives summary judgment | Plaintiffs: Hospital acted intentionally/extremely and caused severe distress to them directly | Hospital: Conduct was directed at patient; plaintiffs did not contemporaneously observe and cannot prove required elements; Maloney barred by prior doctrine (and Squeo did not save claims) | Court: Characterized counts as bystander claims; plaintiffs did not produce evidence they contemporaneously observed conduct—summary judgment for Hospital affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 (recognizes bystander emotional-distress cause and requires contemporaneous sensory perception)
- Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392 (held bystander recovery for emotional distress in medical-malpractice context barred)
- Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital Assn., 316 Conn. 558 (clarified that Clohessy supersedes Maloney but limited recovery to contemporaneous observation of gross professional negligence and other strict elements)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (duty analysis—foreseeability and public policy factors)
- Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Assn., 264 Conn. 474 (healthcare provider owes no duty to bystander nonpatient)
- Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399 (legislative silence and policy in duty analysis)
- Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc., 144 Conn. 659 (one-action rule re duplicative recovery for death and ante-mortem damages)