Wolfork v. Yale Med. Grp.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2020
• Docket Number: SC 20344
• Parties: Karla WOLFORK, Administratrix (Estate of Daeonte Wolfork-Pisani) v. YALE MEDICAL GROUP et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

335 Conn. 448

239 A.3d 272

Karla WOLFORK, Administratrix (Estate of Daeonte Wolfork-Pisani)

v.YALE MEDICAL GROUP et al.

SC 20344

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 15, 2019

Officially released April 22, 2020^*

Brock T. Dubin, with whom, on the brief, was Colleen Noonan Davis, for the appellants (defendants).

Karen E. Haley, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff Damian Pisani).

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn and Ecker, Js.

ECKER, J.

The defendants, Yale Medical Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., and Yale New Haven Health System, appeal from the order of the trial court granting the motion of the substitute plaintiff, Damian Pisani (Pisani), to open and vacate the trial court's final judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute the present action with reasonable diligence under Practice Book § 14-3.¹ The defendants contend that the trial court improperly opened the judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-212² and Practice Book § 17-43³ because (1) Pisani was not a party to the action and, therefore, lacked standing, (2) the motion was not verified by oath, did not demonstrate that a good cause of action existed, and did not establish reasonable cause to excuse the failure to prosecute the action with reasonable diligence, and (3) "there [was] absolutely no claim of fraud on the part of the present defendants." We dismiss the defendants’ appeal in part because we conclude that appellate jurisdiction exists only with respect to the defendants’ challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court to open the judgment on the ground of Pisani's alleged lack of standing. We reject the defendants’ standing claim and, therefore, uphold the trial court's determination with respect to the issue of standing.

In October, 2010, the decedent, Daeonte Wolfork-Pisani, the eleven year old son of Pisani and the plaintiff, Karla Wolfork, died while hospitalized at Yale-New Haven Hospital. The Probate Court appointed the plaintiff as the administratrix of the decedent's estate, and, in February, 2013, the plaintiff, in her representative capacity, filed a medical negligence action against the defendants on behalf of the decedent's estate. The trial court issued a scheduling order requiring the plaintiff to disclose her expert witnesses on or before December 1, 2014. The trial court informed the parties that they "may modify any of the deadlines contained in [the scheduling] order by mutual agreement, except the trial management conference date and trial date set by the court, which shall not be modifiable under any circumstances."

The trial court subsequently modified the scheduling order and extended the filing deadline for the plaintiff's expert witness disclosures to August 15, 2015.

The plaintiff failed to disclose any expert witnesses. Approximately two months prior to trial, the defendants moved for an order precluding the plaintiff from offering expert testimony, claiming that such testimony would prejudice their defense. The trial court deferred ruling on the defendants’ motion.

The trial did not go forward as scheduled, and, in May, 2016, the trial court issued a notice indicating that "the ... case has been reported settled. Counsel and/or pro se parties are ordered to file all necessary withdrawals and/or motions for stipulated judgment with the clerk's office on or before [June 28, 2016].... Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case." No withdrawal was filed. The trial court issued a second notice, this time ordering the parties "to file all necessary withdrawals and/or motions for stipulated judgment" on or before July 28, 2016, with the same admonition that the failure to file a timely withdrawal "will result in dismissal of the case."

On July 28, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a withdrawal. In her motion, the plaintiff explained that, "[o]n May 26, 2016, the Probate Court ... appointed ... Pisani, [the decedent's] biological father, as coadministrator of the estate. While there is no dispute over [the plaintiff's] consent to file the withdrawal by the current due date of July 28, 2016, out of an abundance of caution, [the plaintiff] would like to schedule a hearing with the ... Probate Court so there is no issue over [the plaintiff's] authority to unilaterally withdraw the case without consent from ... Pisani and/or a decree from the Probate Court." The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion and extended the deadline to file a withdrawal to August 29, 2016.

The plaintiff again failed to file a withdrawal within the allotted time. On September 29, 2016, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the action pursuant to Practice Book § 14-3 "for failure to file a withdrawal of [the] action within the time period allotted by the court." The trial court issued a final judgment of dismissal and notified the parties that, "[u]nless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, a motion to open [the] judgment of dismissal must be filed within four months succeeding the date on which notice was sent. ( [Practice Book §] 17-4)."⁴

On January 24, 2017, Pisani⁵ moved to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal under General Statutes § 52-212a⁶ and Practice Book § 17-4. In a memorandum of law in support of his motion, Pisani explained that the plaintiff had "misrepresented to the Probate Court in February of 2013 that she was unaware of any litigation pending, whereupon the Probate Court closed the estate. The estate was reopened on March 22, 2016, and the [Probate] Court appointed ... Pisani as [coadministrator] on May 26, 2016." Pisani's memorandum also represented that, on July 27, 2016, the plaintiff's attorney had sent a letter to the Probate Court "requesting that the matter be set down for a hearing so that the litigation matter can be discussed between the coadministrators and the Probate Court. To that end, on August 30, 2016, the [Probate] Court ... ordered [the plaintiff] to provide a copy of the [medical negligence] litigation file to ... Pisani for his review. The expectation was that the [medical negligence] case should remain open pending review of the file, the purpose of which was to report the status of the case to [the Probate Court], [which] had jurisdiction over the estate." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pisani claimed that "[c]ounsel for the [plaintiff] was aware of these facts and yet failed to request the warranted second request for [an] extension of time to file a withdrawal." Pisani alleged that the "lack of the request for [an] extension of time was due to mistake or accident or other reason unknown in that [the plaintiff] should have communicated to the [trial] court that there was a pending probate issue [and] requested an extension of time to file a withdrawal." Pisani's memorandum advised the trial court that the plaintiff had been removed as administratrix of the estate and that he had been appointed sole administrator "with the authority to handle ... all litigation."

The defendants opposed Pisani's motion to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal on the grounds that (1) Pisani lacked standing because he was not a party to the medical negligence action, and he had not filed a motion to be substituted as the plaintiff, and (2) the motion failed to comply with the requirements of § 52-212 because it was not verified by oath, did not demonstrate that a good cause of action existed, and failed to establish that the plaintiff had been prevented from prosecuting the action by mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause. Pisani responded that (1) he had standing to move to open and vacate the judgment because, as the sole administrator of the estate, he "stepped into the shoes" of the plaintiff, (2) the final judgment of dismissal was not a judgment of default or nonsuit, and, therefore, the motion to open was governed by § 52-212a, not § 52-212, and (3) neither a good cause of action nor a reasonable cause needs to exist if the case was settled, and, to determine whether the case was settled, the judgment must be opened so Pisani can conduct an investigation into the status of the parties’ settlement negotiations.

Pisani filed a supplemental motion to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal, claiming that "he has reason to believe that fraud has been committed." (Emphasis omitted.) Specifically, Pisani alleged that he "has reason to believe that a settlement was reached in the [medical negligence] matter, that [the Probate Court] was not told of the settlement, and did not authorize a settlement, [and] that the estate of his son should have received the proceeds of the settlement and did not." In support of this contention, Pisani referenced "a video [the plaintiff] posted online with the hashtag #4andahalfyearsin on April 25, 2016," in which she "was clearly happy, celebrating and satisfied," despite reportedly being informed by her attorney on that date that no settlement had been reached. The video, "[c]ombined with the fact that [Pisani] was kept in the dark about the estate for years" and "the fact that a representation was made by [the plaintiff's] attorney that [the plaintiff] was aware of no pending litigation and the estate should be closed" in 2013, led Pisani to believe "that a fraud was committed and allowing the case to be dismissed was part of that fraud."

The defendants opposed Pisani's supplemental motion, contending that (1) Pisani still lacked standing because he was not a party to the action, (2) "no settlement payment was made by the defendants in connection with the [medical negligence] action," (3) even if a settlement had been reached, it would not provide a basis on which to open and vacate the judgment because the plaintiff would be forced to withdraw the action in light of the settlement, and (4) Pisani did not allege that the defendants had participated in the alleged fraud.

The trial court...