Gross v. Rell
Citation | 40 A.3d 240,304 Conn. 234 |
Decision Date | 03 April 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 18548.,18548. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Daniel GROSS et al. v. M. Jodi RELL et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sally R. Zanger, Middletown, with whom was Thomas Behrendt, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Louis B. Blumenfeld, with whom was Lorinda S. Coon, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Jonathan Newman).
Richard A. Roberts, with whom were James P. Sexton, and, on the brief, Nadine M. Pare and James R. Fiore, Cheshire, for the appellee (defendant Kathleen Donovan).Jeffrey R. Babbin, New Haven, for the appellee (defendant Grove Manor Nursing Home, Inc.).Daniel J. Klau, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Probate Assembly as amicus curiae.Stacy Canan and Daniel S. Blinn, Rocky Hill, filed a brief for the National Senior Citizens Law Center et al. as amici curiae.Stephen Wizner, New Haven, and Amanda Machin, law student intern, filed a brief for the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization et al. as amici curiae.James G. Felakos, Jane Monteith Hudson, Terri A. Mazur, Jeffrey G. Tougas and Christine A. Walsh filed a brief for the National Disability Rights Network et al. as amici curiae.
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.
This case comes before us upon our acceptance of certified questions of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to General Statutes § 51–199b (d).1 The certified questions are: (1) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Court?; (2) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or to attorneys appointed to represent conservatees?; and (3) What is the role of conservators, court-appointed attorneys for conservatees, and nursing homes in the Connecticut probate court system, in light of the six factors for determining quasi-judicial immunity outlined in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201–202, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985). We conclude that: (1) absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to a conservator appointed by the Probate Court only when the conservator is executing an order of the Probate Court or the conservator's actions are ratified by the Probate Court; (2) absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or conservatees; and (3) our analysis of the first and second certified questions is responsive to the third certified question as it relates to the roles of conservators and court-appointed attorneys; with respect to nursing homes caring for conservatees, we conclude that their function does not entitle them to quasi-judicial immunity under any circumstances.
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sets forth the following facts and procedural history. “In 2005, [the named plaintiff] Daniel Gross,2 a life-long New York resident, was discharged from a hospital in New York after treatment for a leg infection. Shortly thereafter, he went to Waterbury ... where his daughter [the plaintiff] lived, to convalesce. On August 8, 2005, he was admitted to Waterbury Hospital because of complications from his previous treatment. Nine days later, on August 17, 2005, Barbara F. Limauro, a hospital employee, filed an application for appointment of conservator in Waterbury Probate Court. The record does not indicate what prompted Limauro to file this application.
3
...
...
“On June 9, 2006, Gross filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Connecticut Superior Court. A hearing was held on July 12. Brunnock moved to dismiss, making the ... argument that habeas relief was unnecessary because, if the Probate Court acted without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bloomfield Health Care Ctr. of Conn., LLC v. Doyon, AC 40281
...immunity, however, only when his or her actions are expressly authorized or approved by the Probate Court. See Gross v. Rell , 304 Conn. 234, 251–52, 40 A.3d 240 (2012)."[W]hen the Probate Court has expressly authorized or approved specific conduct by the conservator, the conservator is not......
-
Khan v. Yale University
...judicial immunity question to the Connecticut Supreme Court in Gross v. Rell , 585 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2009), certified question answered , 304 Conn. 234, 40 A.3d 240 (2012), the Connecticut Supreme Court "could have easily held that quasi-judicial immunity does not apply to private entities b......
-
State v. Peeler
...State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 253, 49 A.3d 705 (2012); State v. Paige, 304 Conn. 426, 446, 40 A.3d 279 (2012); Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234, 270-71, 40 A.3d 240 (2012); Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 304 Conn. 179, 201, 39 A.3d 712 (2012); State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 541-42, 34 A.3d......
-
Kortner v. Martise, 18793.
...and the conserved person is the duty to safeguard the best interests of the conserved person.” Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234, 40 A.3d 240 (2012) ( McLachlan, J., concurring and dissenting). This court has previously recognized that “there is no difference in the court's duty to safeguard the......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Grogins v. Lampert, Williams & Toohey, LLC, NO. FSTCV106005879S, 2013 WL 1277292 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2013) 8-2:2.1 Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234 (2011) 1-3:2.2, 6-2, 6-3, 9-7:2 Guimont v. Frankling, 2003 WL 1994839 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2003) 9-6:2 Gurski v. Rosenblum, 48 Conn. S......
-
CHAPTER 1 - 1-3 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER
...Prof'l Conduct R 1.14(c).[77] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 1.14(a).[78] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 1.14(b). [79] Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234, 269-71 (2012) (overrules Lesnewski v. Redvers, 276 Conn. 526 (2005) which held that an attorney representing a conservatee could appeal only......
-
CHAPTER 6 - 6-3 LAWYERS ACTING AS CONSERVATORS
..."least restrictive" means to effectuate protective efforts); Luster v. Luster, 128 Conn. App. 259, 268-69 (2011).[58] Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234 (2012).[59] The Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Cantore, 257 Conn. 531 (2001); Bloomfield Health Care Ctr. of Connectic......
-
CHAPTER 6 - 6-2 LAWYERS ACTING AS GUARDIANS AD LITEM OR AS ATTORNEY FOR A MINOR CHILD
...v. Statewide Grievance Committee, No. HHD-CV-09-4045136S, 2009 WL 3740682, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 14, 2009).[52] Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234 (2012).[53] Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234, 252-53 (2012).[54] Sobocinski v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 215 Conn. 517, 526 (1990).[55] See Co......