DocketNumber: No. 58428
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6230, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1067
Judges: ARENA, J.
Filed Date: 6/25/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The following facts are alleged in the complaint. At all relevant times, defendant Nicholas Daukis held himself out as a physician and surgeon specializing in the field of ophthalmology and is licensed to practice medicine in the State of Connecticut and practiced in Middletown, Connecticut. At all relevant times, defendant John Daukis held himself out as a optometrist licensed in the State of Connecticut and practiced in Middletown, Connecticut. The defendants jointly provided eye care services at their common office in Middletown, Connecticut.
Plaintiff John Vernali was continually under the care and treatment of the defendants in and before December, 1988. John Vernali alleges that he suffered injuries caused by the failure of the defendants to exercise the proper degree of care.
Plaintiff Nancy Vernali is the wife of John Vernali. She allege that the injuries incurred by John Vernali have deprived her of the love, care, consortium, society and CT Page 6231 companionship of her husband.
The plaintiffs commenced this action by causing a true and attested copy to the writ, summons and complaint to be served on the defendants on June 13, 1990.
Nicholas Daukis now moves for summary judgment. The pleadings are closed. The parties have filed memoranda of law and appended appropriate documentation thereto.
II. DISCUSSION
"`Practice Book 384 provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."'" Gurliacci v. Mayer,
218 Conn. 531 ,561-62 ,590 A.2d 914 (1991).
Zauner v. Brewer,
"[T]he party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact." Connell v. Colwell,
Nicholas Daukis argues that the plaintiffs' claims against him are barred by General Statutes
The plaintiffs concede that John Vernali last treated with Nicholas Daukis (Plaintiff's Memorandum, pp. 4-5). The plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that Nicholas Daukis had a continuing duty to disclose that he had diagnosed that John CT Page 6232 Vernali was at a high risk of suffering an attack of acute angle-closure glaucoma. The plaintiffs further argue that Nicholas Daukis's duty to disclose this diagnosis continued at least until December of 1988 and, therefore, the action was timely brought. The plaintiffs also argue that this action was commenced within the time allowed by General Statutes
The parties rely, in part, on Connell v. Colwell, supra. In Connell, supra, the plaintiff's decedent consulted the defendant doctor due in part to a concern over a history of prostate cancer in the decedent's family. Connell v. Colwell, supra, 243-44. The plaintiff's decedent treated with the defendant from 1974 until 1982. Id., 243. In 1976, the defendant noted in the decedent's record: "Watch prostate — ? consult early," perhaps indicating that it would be prudent to suggest that the decedent consult with a urologist soon thereafter. Id., 244. In 1982, the defendant recommended that the decedent should consult a urologist. Id. In December of 1982, the consulting urologist requested an immediate biopsy which revealed that the plaintiff's decedent had cancer, which later caused the plaintiff's decedent's death. Id. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in May of 1987. Id. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that General Statutes
The plaintiff in Connell appealed arguing, inter alia, that the limitations period had been tolled by the defendant's continuing failure to disclose material facts. Id., 245. The plaintiff argued that "the defendant was engaged in a continuing course of conduct such that his failure to warn the decedent of his misdiagnosis tolled the statute of limitations until 1986, when the plaintiff first reviewed the defendant's medical records." Id., 254. The court assumed, arguendo, that the defendant had a "duty to inform the decedent that he should have undergone a urological consultation in 1976." Id., 255. The court held, however, that this duty was rendered moot by the diagnosis of the consulting urologist in 1982. Id. The court stated:
We conclude, therefore, that the statute of limitations, if tolled at all due to a continuing course of conduct on the part of the defendant, remained tolled only until the decedent was diagnosed in December, 1982, as having cancer of the prostate. Since suit was brought more than three years CT Page 6233 from that date, it was barred under
52-584 .
Id.
"If a plaintiff is proximately harmed by a delay in a definitive diagnosis, a physician may be held liable. Schaecher v. Reinwein, 41 Ill, App.3d 1055, 1058,
In the present case, it is decided that Nicholas Daukis's duty to disclose his diagnosis that John Vernali was at a high risk of suffering an attack of glaucoma continued until John Vernali was informed that he had glaucoma on March 16, 1989. Because the action was commenced on June 13, 1990, it is found that the action was brought within the time allowed by General Statutes
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons herein stated, it is concluded that the defendant's, Nicholas Daukis's, motion for summary judgment ought to be and is hereby denied as he is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law since the action was brought within the time allowed by General Statutes Sec.
It is so ordered.
ARENA, J.