Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.
Citation | 698 A.2d 795,242 Conn. 1 |
Decision Date | 22 July 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15646,15646 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Mary BRUTTOMESSO, et al. v. NORTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS SERVICES, INC. |
John E. Nimlo, Willimantic, with whom, on the brief, was Richard E. Joaquin, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Joseph B. Curran, Rocky Hill, for appellee (defendant).
Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and MCDONALD, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a sexual assault crisis center that provides counseling to victims of sexual assault or abuse is a "health care provider" within the meaning of General Statutes § 52-190a. 1 We conclude that because neither the defendant, Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Connecticut, 2 nor its employees is licensed or certified by the department of public health, 3 the defendant does not fall within the statutory definition and, consequently, the plaintiffs cannot rely upon the extension of the statute of limitations provided by § 52-190a(b) to save their action, which was brought beyond the two year limitation of General Statutes § 52-584, 4 from being time barred.
The plaintiffs have set forth the following allegations in their complaint. The named plaintiff, Mary Bruttomesso, is the natural mother and next friend of the plaintiffs T, G and C, all of whom are minors (minor plaintiffs). 5 Following incidents involving the minor plaintiffs that led to the arrest and imprisonment of Darrell Spencer for sexual assault in the first and second degree and risk of injury to a child, Bruttomesso sought counseling for the minor plaintiffs with the defendant. The defendant, through its agent and employee, Rene Suprenat, also counseled Spencer while he was incarcerated awaiting trial at the Brooklyn Correctional Center in Brooklyn. During the course of those counseling services, Suprenat established a relationship with Spencer and assisted him in the defense of the criminal charges against him and put up her personal residence as collateral, allowing him to post bond for his release. The minor plaintiffs learned of Spencer's release and, as a result, until the time that Spencer pleaded guilty and was reincarcerated, suffered constant fear, apprehension, anxiety, and emotional pain and stress. Furthermore, as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence and carelessness, 6 the minor plaintiffs were compelled to secure counseling with other therapists, which in turn delayed their recovery and caused them to incur additional treatment expense.
Along with their complaint, the plaintiffs provided, as required by § 52-190a(a), a certificate of reasonable inquiry that grounds existed for a good faith belief that the defendant's alleged negligence caused their injuries. Although this action was brought more than two years after Spencer's release, the plaintiffs received an extension of time pursuant to § 52-190a(b), which provides a ninety day extension to permit the reasonable inquiry necessary to obtain the foundation for this good faith certificate. The plaintiffs rely on this extension to argue that their action is not time barred by § 52-584.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs' action was time barred because the defendant is not a health care provider and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not avail themselves of the ninety day extension provided by § 52-190a(b). The trial court agreed and rendered judgment for the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court and the appeal was transferred to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We conclude that the defendant is not a health care provider within the meaning of § 52-190a. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant makes the same claim on appeal that it made in its motion for summary judgment: because it does not provide medical treatment, a rape crisis center is not a health care provider within the meaning of § 52-190a. The plaintiffs assert that the defendant is a health care provider under § 52-190a because it is "licensed," and, consequently, the action was brought in a timely manner and the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 235 Conn. 185, 202, 663 A.2d 1001 (1995); see also Practice Book § 384.
The plaintiffs do not contest that, in the absence of the savings clause of § 52-190a(b), the action was untimely. Therefore, the only issue before the trial court was whether the defendant was a health care provider within the meaning of § 52-190a. The trial court concluded that, as a matter of law, the defendant was not a health care provider because it was not a medical care provider. The plaintiffs concede that the defendant did not provide medical care but, nevertheless, they argue that the defendant is a health care provider because it was "licensed." Although such a claim might otherwise require consideration of facts as well as law, under the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no material facts in dispute. Therefore, the issue of whether the defendant was a health care provider is an appropriate matter for summary judgment.
The rules of statutory construction are well settled. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Marselle, 236 Conn. 845, 850, 675 A.2d 835 (1996).
7 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 851, 675 A.2d 835.
Section 52-190a does not specifically define "health care provider." Although the trial court recognized that many other statutes expressly define the term; see footnote 7; it nevertheless confined its inquiry to General Statutes § 52-184c because that provision is expressly referenced in § 52-190a(a) as follows: "[G]ood faith may be shown to exist if the claimant or his attorney has received a written opinion ... of a similar health care provider as defined in section 52-184c...." 8 By relying solely on that statute's definitions of "similar health care provider," which utilize the terms "medical," "medicine" and "treatment or diagnosis," the trial court concluded that § 52-190a applies only to a medical professional whose business is the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of physical or mental illness. Because there was no claim that the plaintiffs received medical treatment for physical or mental illness from the defendant, the trial court held that, as a matter of law, § 52-190a did not apply to the plaintiffs' claim. Although we agree with the trial court that a rape crisis center is not a health care provider as envisioned by § 52-190a, we do so not because a rape crisis center does not provide medical services, but because it is not licensed by the state to provide the professional services it does offer. We leave for another day the issue of whether the term "health care provider" should be restricted to medical care providers.
In defining a cause of action against a health care provider, § 52-184c incorporates the definition of health care provider set forth in General Statutes § 52-184b, which, in turn, provides that a health care provider "is any person, corporation, facility or institution licensed by this state to provide health...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Levine v. Advest, Inc.
...Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership, 243 Conn. 552, 554, 707 A.2d 15 (1998); Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc., 242 Conn. 1, 5-6, 698 A.2d 795 (1997); see Practice Book § 384, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY J......
-
Ruddock v. Burrowes
...quotation marks omitted.) Doty v. Mucci, 238 Conn. 800, 805-806, 679 A.2d 945 (1996); Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc., 242 Conn. 1, 5-6, 698 A.2d 795 (1997); Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 744-45, 660 A.2d 810 (1995); Suarez ......
-
Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership
...Casualty Co., 235 Conn. 185, 202, 663 A.2d 1001 (1995); see also Practice Book § 384." Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc., 242 Conn. 1, 5-6, 698 A.2d 795 (1997). The facts established by the pleadings, affidavits and other proof, viewed in the light......
-
Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services
...as the department of public health. Public Acts 1995, No. 95-257, §§ 12, 21, 58; Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc., 242 Conn. 1, 3 n.3, 698 A.2d 795 (1997). Although the court disagreed with several of the plaintiffs claims, it nevertheless sustain......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...risk of future medical expenses." Id. at 55 n. 9 (citing to Petriello v. Kalman, 215 Conn. 377, 397-98, 576 A.2d 474 (1990)). 90. 242 Conn. 1, 698 A.2d 795 (1997). 91. Id. at 10-13. The court did not address the issue of whether the term "health care provider" contained in CONN. GEN. STAT. ......