DocketNumber: No. CV 00 72945 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5811
Judges: SFERRAZZA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/1/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The second revised complaint contains the following allegations. Dr. Pierce was a psychiatrist employed by another defendant, Olympus Health Group, which operated a nursing home which cared for Herbert Muller, the elderly father of Chris Muller, who was the conservator of his father's person and estate. Dr. Pierce filed a complaint, which reached the Manchester Police Department, based on the negligent interpretation of arsenic levels in Herbert Muller's blood. A police investigation ensued which uncovered no evidence supporting the suspicion that Chris Muller was poisoning his father. Sometime after Dr. Pierce lodged his complaint, a toxicological test performed by John Dempsey Hospital revealed normal levels of arsenic in Herbert Muller's blood. Dr. Pierce never forwarded these findings to Chris Muller or the Probate Court supervising Herbert Muller's conservatorship. This failure delayed resolution of a conservatorship battle in Chris Muller's favor causing him to incur economic expenses and loss of reputation and causing his father's estate to suffer financially. Chris Muller and his father's estate sue Dr. Pierce for negligence and fraud by nondisclosure.
Because no count of the present complaint against Dr. Pierce claims damages for personal injury or wrongful death, §
Subsection
If the legislature wished, it could have placed upon mandated reporters, under §
Dr. Pierce did not act gratuitously but under penalty of law had he failed to report his suspicion. The agency to whom one complains conducts the investigation rather than the complainant. That is the point of mandating reports, so that such investigation will be initiated to determine if, in fact, such abuse occurred.
The immunity provision would serve little purpose if it applied only to complaints which prove true after investigation. Complainants would need no immunity in that case. The statute affords immunity whether or not the report proves accurate. The only exception is if the complaint was made in bad faith or for malicious purpose.
The averments against Dr. Pierce fail to state facts supporting bad faith in making the report. There is no allegation that Dr. Pierce deliberately lied or acted without regard for the truth of his complaint. "Bad faith" means more than mere negligence, Gupta v. NewBritain General Hospital,
The plaintiffs' allegations are that after the report Dr. Pierce failed to correct or retract his complaint. Subsection
The motion to strike is granted as to all counts pertaining to Dr. Pierce.
Sferrazza, J. CT Page 5814