Reyes v. Medina Loveras, LLC
166 A.3d 88
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 7, 2013, Reyes was on the Discovery Café (defendant) premises when a men’s bathroom sink collapsed; she fell onto the broken sink and sustained a buttock injury.\
- Disputed facts at trial: Reyes testified she steadied herself on the sink to take a photo when it collapsed; other evidence suggested she was attempting to urinate in the sink.\
- Reyes was treated at Stamford Hospital; a tertiary trauma report recorded that she was drunk and trying to urinate into the sink when it broke.\
- At trial the jury apportioned fault 90% to Reyes and 10% to Medina Loveras, and judgment was entered for the defendant.\
- On appeal Reyes challenged (1) admission of a photograph of her uninjured buttock and (2) admission of the tertiary trauma hospital entry stating she was trying to urinate in the sink.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photo of uninjured buttock | Photo irrelevant and prejudicial; suggests injury healed | Photo aids comparison between injured and uninjured buttock | Court: admissible; relevant for comparison; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of tertiary trauma note as party-opponent statement | Report is hearsay; physician didn’t recall exact words so not attributable to Reyes | Physician testified the entry came from patient; Reyes admitted telling hospital staff what happened | Court: admissible as party-opponent; testimony attributed statement to Reyes |
| Admission of tertiary trauma note under hospital-records exception | Statement not pertinent to diagnosis/treatment, so inadmissible under §52-180 | Statement relevant to diagnosis/treatment (mechanism of injury, intoxication); tertiary review intended to detect missed injuries | Court: admissible under hospital-records exception because statement bore on diagnosis/treatment and preventing missed injuries |
| Standard of review for evidentiary rulings | N/A (procedural posture) | N/A | Court applied plenary review to hearsay-exception classification and abuse-of-discretion to evidentiary rulings; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Milford Bank v. Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., 143 Conn. App. 519 (appellate standard for evidentiary rulings)\
- Drake v. Bingham, 131 Conn. App. 701 (definition of relevance)\
- Fico v. Liquor Control Commission, 168 Conn. 74 (admissions of a party-opponent exception to hearsay)\
- Marko v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550 (hospital records admissible only if pertinent to diagnosis/treatment)\
- D’Amato v. Johnston, 140 Conn. 54 (intoxication as medically germane to treatment)