Multari v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 426
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Karen Multari accompanied her granddaughter to Yale-New Haven Hospital after the child underwent surgery; staff said the child was "thrashing" from anesthesia.
- While the child’s father briefly left the area, hospital staff told Multari she and the child had to leave immediately; a nurse packed the child’s things and escorted them out without offering a wheelchair.
- Multari, carrying the groggy child plus belongings, tripped and fell on hospital premises and was injured.
- Multari sued the hospital alleging negligence for creating a dangerous condition, forcing them to leave while the child was not fully awake, and failing to assist her; she did not file a § 52-190a certificate of good faith or expert opinion.
- The hospital moved to dismiss under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a for failure to plead a certificate supporting a medical malpractice claim; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the complaint sounded in medical malpractice (triggering § 52-190a) or ordinary negligence and reversed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint sounds in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence | Multari: complaint alleges ordinary negligence related to ejection and lack of assistance, not medical treatment; no malpractice elements or provider named | Hospital: incident arose from medical circumstances (post-anesthesia), so claim sounds in medical malpractice requiring § 52-190a compliance | The claim sounds in ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice; dismissal under § 52-190a was error |
| Whether defendant was sued in capacity as a medical professional | Multari: sued defendant for premises/negligent assistance, not for medical care | Hospital: hospital is a health care provider and incident tied to post-operative condition | Court: allegations did not sue hospital in its medical-capacity; first Trimel prong not met |
| Whether alleged negligence arose from a professional patient relationship | Multari: she was not a patient and did not allege she received medical services | Hospital: child’s post-anesthesia state implicates medical judgment and treatment decisions | Court: no allegation Multari was a patient or that discharge involved medical judgment; second and third Trimel prongs not met |
| Whether inartful malpractice language converts an ordinary negligence claim into malpractice | Multari: any malpractice-type wording merely described circumstances and not treatment error | Hospital: wording about discharging while not fully recovered suggests treatment-related negligence | Court: context shows wording was descriptive of the ejection circumstances; not malpractice |
Key Cases Cited
- Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 61 Conn. App. 353 (2001) (three-part test for distinguishing medical malpractice from ordinary negligence)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011) (standard of review on motion to dismiss and construing pleadings in plaintiff’s favor)
- Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (2008) (pleadings construed broadly and realistically to effect substantial justice)
- Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 578 (2012) (a defendant’s status as a medical provider alone does not convert ordinary negligence into malpractice)
- Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569 (2009) (appellate plenary review of trial court’s interpretation of pleadings)