Matzkevich v. Waterbury Hosp. Health Center
| Citation | 41 Conn.Supp. 373,576 A.2d 1320 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 67763,67763 |
| Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Helen K. MATZKEVICH, et al. v. WATERBURY HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER, et al. File |
Silver, Golub & Teitell, Stanford, for plaintiffs.
Howard, Kohn, Sprague & Fitzgerald, Hartford, for named defendant.
Gager, Henry & Narkis, Southbury, for defendant Frederick L. Cohn, M.D., P.C.
The court has reviewed the portions of certain depositions submitted by the plaintiffs with their motion to compel. The depositions are those of Susan Wehner, Kathleen Lincoln, Roberta Mariana, Shirley Brown and Mary Anne Hassinger, all registered nurses, and of Benjamin Berliner and Henry Helvie, both physicians. From that review it is clear that each deponent was intimately connected with the process of health care received by the plaintiffs, Helen K. Matzkevich and her infant son, while they were patients at Waterbury Hospital in January, 1982. Further review of those portions of the complaint in which numerous counts of malpractice are alleged against the hospital and in which the involvement of various hospital health care professionals is further alleged has satisfied the court that those deponents and any other hospital personnel similarly situated were professional agents of the hospital directly involved in the treatment received by the plaintiffs or were responsible for hospital policies and procedures affecting the plaintiffs' treatment. Certainly, the professional opinions that each deponent may have formulated for the treatment provided the plaintiffs are discoverable, as are the actual treatments provided by each hospital professional. Further, the standards of care, hospital procedures, protocols and professional reports or complaints pertinent to the plaintiffs' care or alleged lack of care are likewise discoverable. Needless to say, the plaintiffs are entitled during the discovery process to elicit from those deponents any available admissions of violations of the applicable standards of care. Console v. Nickou, 156 Conn. 268, 273-74, 240 A.2d 895 (1968); Allen v. Giuliano 44 Conn. 573, 574-75, 135 A.2d 904 (1957).
The principal defendant opposing this motion is Waterbury Hospital Health Center, the named defendant. That defendant's objections during these depositions have been predicated upon the plaintiffs' failure to follow the mandate of Practice Book § 220 to disclose any one of those deponents as the plaintiffs' expert. In advancing its objections during the deposition processes, the named defendant has also relied upon the earlier opinion of the court, Flynn, J., concerning the deposition of Laura Coultrip, M.D.
This court does not believe that disclosure under § 220 by the plaintiffs of the hospital's agents who very clearly provided care or were responsible for the hospital standards and procedures related to the plaintiffs' care, is essential to the deposition and discovery process. Prior to the completion of a deposition, it would be indeed a herculean feat not contemplated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial