DocketNumber: No. CV 91-031241-S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5311
Judges: GRAY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/18/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The complaint alleges that the defendants Joseph A. Walsh and Bennett Barton were licensed physicians practicing the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Connecticut, Inc., d/b/a Kaiser Permanente, Northeast Permanente Medical Group, P.C. ("Kaiser defendants"). It further alleges that defendants Deborah Stephanie Hoffman and Sybil Ann Williams were "practicing the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology individually and/or [were] the agent[s], servant[s] and employee[s] of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Connecticut, Inc., d/b/a Kaiser Permanente, Northeast Permanente Medical Group, P.C." or the agents, servants or employees of Hartford Hospital ("Hartford Hospital defendants").
The allegations of the complaint claim, in substance, that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiffs to properly treat and to perform in a competent manner medical, obstetrical, gynecological and surgical services, tests and procedures and that the defendants individually and together in various ways were negligent and breached the duty owed to the plaintiffs. Moreover, it is further claimed that the plaintiffs Sandra Hart and/or Wallace J. Hart, Sr. CT Page 5312 entered into agreements with both the Kaiser defendants and the Hartford Hospital defendants and their agents, servants and employees individually and together on behalf of Sandra Hart and on behalf of her present and future family. It is claimed that the defendants breached their contracts with the plaintiffs because the defendants failed to perform in accordance with their promises, assurances and/or guarantees made to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is claimed that the plaintiff Sandra Hart, as a result of witnessing the defendants' negligence and the resulting injuries to her child, has and will continue to suffer from emotional distress.
The following is a summary of the twelve counts of the complaint:
Count One: Plaintiff Wallace J. Hart, Jr. alleges negligence against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Two: Wallace J. Hart, Jr. alleges breach of contract against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Three: Wallace J. Hart, Jr. alleges negligence against the Hartford Hospital defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton.
Count Four: Wallace J. Hart, Jr. alleges breach of contract against the Hartford Hospital defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton.
Count Five: Sandra Hart alleges emotional distress resulting from negligence against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Six: Sandra Hart alleges emotional distress resulting from breach of contract against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Seven: Sandra Hart alleges emotional distress resulting from negligence against the Hartford Hospital defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton.
Count Eight: Sandra Hart alleges emotional distress resulting from breach of contract against the Hartford Hospital defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton. CT Page 5313
Count Nine: Wallace J. Hart, Sr. alleges negligence against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Ten: Wallace J. Hart, Sr. alleges breach of contract against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Hoffman and Williams.
Count Eleven: Wallace J. Hart, Sr. alleges negligence against the Hartford Hospital defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton.
Count Twelve: Wallace J. Hart.[,] Sr. alleges breach against the Kaiser defendants and defendants Walsh and Barton.
The Kaiser defendants moved to strike counts two, five and ten on the grounds of legal insufficiency and counts four, seven, eight, eleven and twelve on the grounds that these counts were duplicative of counts one, two, five, six, nine and ten. The Hartford Hospital defendants moved to strike counts two, four, five, six, seven, eight, ten and twelve on the grounds of legal insufficiency and counts one, two, five, six, nine and ten on the grounds that these counts were duplicative of counts three, four, seven, eight, eleven and twelve.
The defendants' motions to strike raise the following issues:
1. Whether a motion to strike is the proper procedure to challenge pleadings as duplicative.
2. Whether a child who was unborn at the time of an alleged agreement may recover as a third party beneficiary.
3. Whether a claim arising out of medical services provided by a physician will withstand an attack upon its legal sufficiency where the plaintiffs' pleading is redundant of its malpractice claim, but replaces the negligence allegation with a breach of contract allegation.
4. Whether a mother fails to state a legally sufficient claim when she seeks to recover in CT Page 5314 negligence for emotional distress in a medical malpractice action for injuries her child received while in utero and at birth.
The purpose of a motion to strike is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, or of any count therein, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Practice Book § 152(1). Also, see Ferryman v. Groton,
The gravamen of the defendants' arguments in moving to strike the counts claimed to be duplicative is that those counts merely incorporate and allege the same claims of negligence and breach of contract against defendants Walsh, Barton, Hoffman and Williams in multiple counts for the same negligent acts and breach of contract. The defendants argue that since the plaintiffs may only recover once on their different negligence and contract theories, the duplicative counts of the complaint must be stricken.
"Whenever any party desires to obtain . . . the deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious, scandalous, impertinent, immaterial or otherwise improper allegations in an adverse party's pleading . . . the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading." (Emphasis added.) Practice Book, § 147(2). Accordingly, the proper method for seeking to delete duplicative allegations from an adversary's pleading is to move to revise such pleading rather than by a motion to strike. Delvecchio v. Mobil Oil Corporation,
The defendants' motions to strike on the grounds of duplicative counts are improper grounds for a motion to strike and, accordingly, the motions are denied insofar as the claimed basis is "duplicative counts."
Both the Kaiser and Hartford defendants argue that the second CT Page 5315 and fourth counts are legally insufficient because there is no allegation of the existence of a contract between Wallace J. Hart, Jr. and the defendants. The defendants insist that, as an unborn person, Wallace J. Hart, Jr. could not possibly have manifested assent to a contract and that, as an infant, he lacked the capacity to contract. The plaintiffs argue that he is entitled to recover as a third party beneficiary.
The second and fourth counts allege that plaintiffs Sandra Hart and/or Wallace J. Hart, Sr. entered into agreements with both the Kaiser defendants and the Hartford Hospital defendants, their agents, servants and employees, individually and together, on behalf of Sandra Hart and on behalf of her present and future family; that the defendants agreed to properly treat and perform in a competent manner medical, obstetrical, gynecological and surgical services, tests and procedures.
The complaint alleges a breach of the contracts by the defendants in that the defendants failed to perform in accordance with their promises, assurances and/or guarantees made to the plaintiffs. "The ultimate test to be applied in determining whether a person has a right of action as third party beneficiary is whether the intent of the promisor should assume a direct obligation to the third party beneficiary. . . ." Knapp v. New HavenRoad Construction Co.,
Third parties "seeking to enforce contractual rights must allege that the contracting parties intended that the promisor should assume a direct relationship to the third party." Espositov. Community Mental Health Affiliates,
The Kaiser and Hartford Hospital defendants argue that counts six, eight, ten and twelve are legally insufficient because there are no allegations of the existence of a contract between Sandra Hart or Wallace J. Hart, Sr. and the defendants. The crux of this argument is that the plaintiffs have failed to allege the existence of a specific agreement between the parties which creates an obligation beyond the general duty of a health care provider to act reasonably. Thus, the defendants claim, the plaintiffs have simply incorporated into their breach of contract counts the same allegations of improper conduct that they rely upon to support CT Page 5316 their negligence counts.
The plaintiffs contend that they have sufficiently alleged the existence of a specific agreement between themselves and the defendants. They argue that paragraphs eleven through thirteen of the second, fourth, fifth (hereinafter sixth),1 eighth, tenth and twelfth counts allege a specific agreement beyond the general duty of a health care provider owed to a patient. It is plaintiffs' position that malpractice is a hybrid claim and can be based in negligence and in breach of contract.
As in the third party beneficiary counts, the plaintiffs allege in counts two, four, six, eight, ten and twelve that Sandra Hart and/or Wallace J. Hart, Sr. entered into agreements with both the Kaiser defendants and the Hartford Hospital defendants on behalf of Sandra Hart and on behalf of her present and future family. The claim is that the defendants breached their contracts with the plaintiffs by failing to perform in accordance with defendants' promise to treat properly and perform in a competent manner medical, obstetrical, gynecological and surgical services, tests and procedures.
Although many cases appear to support the defendants' proposition that "a breach of contract claim arising out of the rendition of medical services by a physician will withstand a test to its legal sufficiency only where it is based upon an express special promise to effect a cure or to accomplish some definitive result," Lapis, Admix. v. Herman, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 267674 (April 18, 1989), citing Monroe v. Long Island College Hospital,
A breach of contract count should not be stricken where it simply incorporates negligence allegations of a preceding count,Paggioli v. Manchester Memorial Hospital,
The allegations of paragraph eleven of the second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth and twelfth counts of the plaintiffs' complaint expressly sound in contract and sufficiently allege facts that a specific agreement existed between the parties.
The Kaiser defendants attack the fifth count and the Hartford Hospital defendants attack the fifth and seventh counts as insufficient because it is claimed that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for bystander emotional distress in medical malpractice actions. The defendants rely on the decision in Maloney v. Conroy,
The plaintiff Sandra Hart's claims are not rounded upon her being a mere eyewitness or bystander. Rather, her claim is based upon one to whom a duty is directly owed. She alleges that she sustained emotional distress as a result of defendants' negligence; that her child's injuries were the result of that negligence and that as a result of witnessing the defendants' negligence and the injuries to her newborn child, she has suffered and will continue to suffer from emotional distress.
A claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress that arises out of the physician-patient relationship moves beyond the contemplation of Maloney where the plaintiff sought damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress which resulted from her observing the defendant's medical malpractice in the treatment of her mother. The ruling that the defendant owed no duty to a relative bystander was limited to the factual situation presented to the court. See, Shipp v. Norwalk Hospital,
"To infer that a mother is a bystander at the birth of her infant manifests a basic misunderstanding of the duty owed a patient by a physician. In such a circumstance . . . there are two within the zone of danger and the doctor owes a duty to each. . . ."Shipp v. Norwalk Hospital, supra, citing Britton v. Borelli, supra, quoting Howard v. Lecher,
The court further stated that "if she succeeds . . . in proving that the injury to her infant child was caused by the defendants' negligent act or omissions during her labor, then anxiety and emotional distress, suffered by her as a natural consequence of those wrongful acts, should be compensable . . . under ordinary principles of negligence." Britton v. Borelli, supra, at 14-15.
In the present case the plaintiff mother's allegations of emotional distress resulting from the defendants' negligence and their breach of contract arising from the physician-patient relationship properly plead facts to support an action for emotional distress.
The defendants' motions to strike are denied in their entirety.
BY THE COURT:
LEANDER C. GRAY, JUDGE