195 Conn.App. 294
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Nurse Kateri Streifel sued patient William Bulkley for negligence after he grabbed her while moving from supine to seated during a radiation oncology visit, injuring her.
- Complaint alleged multiple negligent acts (excessive pull force, failure to summon help, horseplay, etc.).
- Bulkley moved for summary judgment arguing public policy precludes a medical provider suing a patient for negligence while the patient is receiving care.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, concluding Bulkley owed no duty of care to Streifel; this appeal followed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the motion should have been treated as a motion to strike, whether duty/foreseeability were for the jury, and whether public policy forbids imposing such a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary judgment motion functioned as a challenge to legal sufficiency and should have been treated as a motion to strike to allow repleading | Streifel: the complaint could be cured by repleading (e.g., add assault/battery); court should have allowed amendment | Bulkley: motion for summary judgment properly challenged the claim as legally insufficient and unrepleadable | Waived on appeal — Streifel did not ask trial court to treat the motion as a motion to strike or offer to amend; appellate court affirmed summary judgment |
| Whether existence of duty (and foreseeability) was a factual question for the jury | Streifel: foreseeability must be decided before duty; factual issues existed | Bulkley: duty is a question of law and court may decide duty based on public policy without reaching foreseeability | Duty is a question of law; court may decide no duty on public policy grounds without addressing foreseeability |
| Whether recognizing a duty (patient to provider) is inconsistent with public policy | Streifel: public policy does not bar imposing duty; concern about assumption-of-risk reasoning | Bulkley: recognizing duty would chill care seeking, increase litigation, invade confidentiality, and is unnecessary because workers’ comp exists | Court declined to recognize a duty as a matter of law after applying Murillo four-factor public policy test; all factors weighed against imposing duty |
| Scope of decision: does ruling bar intentional-tort or non-treatment-context claims by providers against patients? | Streifel: (implicit) sought broad recovery | Bulkley: limited to negligence during provision of care | Court limited decision: does not bar claims for intentional torts or negligence outside the immediate care context; ruling applies only to negligent acts causing physical harm while patient is receiving medical treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Assn., Inc., 264 Conn. 474 (Conn. 2003) (articulates four-factor public policy test for recognizing duties)
- Sepega v. DeLaura, 326 Conn. 788 (Conn. 2017) (addresses limits of firefighter’s rule and interaction with assumption-of-risk reasoning)
- Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 578 (Conn. 2012) (considers normal expectations of participants in medical-treatment contexts)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (Conn. 1998) (weighs workers’ compensation availability and social costs in duty analysis)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2005) (procedure for using summary judgment to challenge legal sufficiency of pleadings)
- Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky, 280 Conn. 190 (Conn. 2006) (duty inquiry decomposed into foreseeability and public policy)
- Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc., 190 Conn. 791 (Conn. 1983) (abolition of assumption of risk as complete bar; factors remain relevant)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2012) (reiterates duty as question of law)
- Bloomfield Health Care Ctr. of Conn., LLC v. Doyon, 185 Conn. App. 340 (Conn. App. 2018) (applies Murillo factors in healthcare context)