Cornelio v. Stamford Hosp.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 15826,15826
• Citation: 717 A.2d 140,246 Conn. 45
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Angela CORNELIO v. STAMFORD HOSPITAL.

Page 140

717 A.2d 140

246 Conn. 45

Angela CORNELIO v. STAMFORD HOSPITAL.

No. 15826.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 28, 1998.

Decided Aug. 4, 1998.

Brenden P. Leydon, Stamford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Douglas R. Steinmetz, Stamford, with whom was Charles D. Ray, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Mark R. Kravitz, Alex V. Chachkes, New Haven, and Jennifer D. Jackson, Wallingford, filed a brief for Connecticut Hospital Association, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, McDONALD and PETERS, JJ.

CALLAHAN, Chief Justice.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Angela Cornelio, has a right to immediate possession of pathology slides obtained and analyzed in the course of her medical care by the defendant, Stamford Hospital. We conclude that she does not have such a right.

The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. A Papanicolaou test, or Pap smear, is a test commonly used to screen for cancer of the cervix and endometrium. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (28th Ed.1994) p. 1681. In brief, a specimen that contains cervical cells is removed from a patient and fixed on a laboratory slide. Id. After the Papanicolaou stain, which enhances the visibility of cell characteristics, has been applied to the slide, the specimen is examined under a microscope for cellular abnormalities. Id.; see also G. Papanicolaou, Atlas of Exfoliative Cytology (1963) pp. 3-6.

Pap smear specimens were taken from the plaintiff by her physician, Frances Ginsburg, on August 2, 1993, August 22, 1994, January 9, 1995, February 9, 1995, and November 2, 1995. The plaintiff voluntarily consented to having a specimen taken prior to undergoing each of those procedures. The record, however, does not include a consent form documenting the parameters of the plaintiff's consent to any of the five Pap smear tests. Ginsburg sent each of the Pap smear specimens taken from the plaintiff to the defendant's pathology department for interpretation. The defendant analyzed those specimens and prepared written reports of its findings, dated August 21, 1993, August 25, 1994, January 13, 1995, February 14, 1995, and November 8, 1995.

The plaintiff alleges that on November 22, 1995, she was diagnosed with Stage IB endocervical adenocarcinoma, and that she subsequently underwent a radical hysterectomy at Yale-New Haven Hospital. In February, 1996, at the plaintiff's request, the defendant sent the pathology slides that contain the Pap smear specimens taken from the plaintiff ¹ to Yale-New Haven Hospital for review. The Yale-New Haven Hospital pathology department analyzed the slides and prepared a report of its findings. That report states the slides contain "highly atypical endocervical cells." The slides were then returned to the defendant.

In August, 1996, the plaintiff requested that the defendant release the slides directly to her. The defendant informed the plaintiff that it would not do so because the slides contained cells that could not be duplicated. The defendant agreed, however, to allow experts retained by the plaintiff to examine the slides at the defendant's pathology department.

The plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the defendant in the Superior Court, by way of a bill of discovery, seeking an order compelling the defendant to release the slides to her. Specifically, the plaintiff maintained that their release was necessary in order for her to fulfill her obligation under General Statutes § 52-190a ² to ascertain, prior to bringing a malpractice claim against the defendant, a good faith basis for such a claim. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff did not need to obtain possession of the slides in order to satisfy the requirements of § 52-190a. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an order compelling the defendant to release the slides directly to her.

Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action for replevin against the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 52-515 ³ seeking possession of the slides and damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the plaintiff lacked both a property interest in the slides and a right to their immediate possession. The plaintiff thereafter also moved for summary judgment, claiming a property interest in the slides and a right to their immediate possession. ⁴ The trial court concluded that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff lacked a property interest in the slides and that, consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled either to replevin of the slides or to damages. The trial court, therefore, granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant.

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4024, now § 65-2, and General Statutes § 51-199(c).

In Connecticut, replevin proceedings are governed by statute rather than by the rules that apply to common-law actions of replevin. Staub v. Anderson, 152 Conn. 694, 695, 211 A.2d 691 (1965); M. Itzkowitz & Sons, Inc. v. Santorelli, 128 Conn. 195, 198, 21 A.2d 376 (1941); Belknap Savings Bank v. Robinson, 66 Conn. 542, 547, 34 A. 495 (1895). Section 52-515 provides that "[t]he action of replevin may be maintained to recover any goods or chattels in which the plaintiff has a general or special property interest with a right to immediate possession and which are wrongfully detained from him in any manner, together with the damages for such wrongful detention." Thus, in order to replevin the slides, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the slides are "goods or chattels" within the meaning of § 52-515; (2) she has a "property interest" in the slides; (3) she has a right to immediate possession of the slides; and (4) the defendant has wrongfully detained the slides. See D'Addario v. Abbott, 128 Conn. 506, 507-508, 24 A.2d 245 (1941); M. Itzkowitz & Sons, Inc. v. Santorelli, supra, at 198, 21 A.2d 376.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendant was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff had a property interest and a right to immediate possession of the specimens removed from her body during the procedures she had undergone. ⁵ The plaintiff argues that: (1) a person's body is "property"; (2) consequently, prior to removal from the plaintiff's body, the Pap smear specimens contained on the slides were her "property" and, therefore, her "chattel" within the meaning of § 52-515; (3) the plaintiff intended to retain her "property interest" in and her right to control of the specimens; and (4) as a result, § 52-515 provides the plaintiff a right to replevin of the slides that contain those specimens.

The defendant argues, conversely, that the plaintiff's claimed intent to retain ownership and a right to control of the Pap smear specimens contained on the slides does not raise an issue of material fact. The defendant contends that it was entitled to summary judgment because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff lacks both a property interest in and a right to immediate possession of the slides as required by § 52-515.

Assuming, without deciding, that the specimens are "property" and "chattel" within the meaning of § 52-515, ⁶ and further assuming without deciding, that the plaintiff has retained a "property interest" in the specimens, we, nevertheless, agree with the defendant that the plaintiff, as a matter of statutory law, lacks a right to immediate personal possession of the slides that contain those specimens. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

An overview of the statutory scheme pertaining to patient access to hospital records is necessary to a resolution of this appeal. Historically, only General Statutes §§ 4-104 and 4-105 ⁷ addressed such access. Section 4-104 provides that private hospitals receiving state aid "shall, upon the demand of any patient ... permit such patient or his physician or authorized attorney to examine the hospital record ... and permit copies of such history, bedside notes and charts to be made...." Thus, § 4-104 provides a patient who has been discharged from a private hospital that receives state aid a statutory right to examine and to obtain copies of his hospital record. In 1978, concluding that the term "state aid" in § 4-104 refers only to appropriations by the General Assembly and not to property tax exemptions, payments made to a hospital pursuant to contractual relations with the state, or to reimbursement for services rendered to indigent patients; Doe v. Institute of Living, Inc., 175 Conn. 49, 64-65, 392 A.2d 491 (1978); this court further concluded that a private hospital that did not receive state aid had no legal obligation to allow patients to examine or obtain copies of their hospital records. ⁸ Id., at 65, 392 A.2d 491 ("[i]t is not for this court to impose obligations not intended by the legislature"). Thus, patients' rights regarding access to their private hospital records historically were limited to a statutory right to examine or copy the records of those private hospitals that received state aid.

In 1992, however, the legislature enacted General Statutes § 19a-490b, ⁹ which provides patients of all hospitals licensed by the state a right to examine and obtain copies of their hospital records. The circumstances surrounding the enactment of § 19a-490b are instructive. In 1983, the legislature enacted the access to patients' medical records act; General Statutes §§ 20-7b through 20-7e; ¹⁰ to provide patients with access to health records prepared by individual health care providers such as physicians and dentists. See Public Acts 1983, No. 83-413. The initial version of House Bill No. 5908, the bill that eventually was enacted as Public Acts 1983, No. 83-413, and codified as General...