Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a medical malpractice claim against the state was not indirectly paid by a third party under General Statutes § 4-160b(a) merely because the plaintiff settled a separate negligence action against a pharmacy and its affiliates. The court concluded that the settlement was payment on a distinct claim against the private defendants, and that the common-law prohibition against double recovery did not bar the state action because no damages judgment had been entered and satisfied. The court affirmed the denial of the state’s motion to dismiss.
Holdings
- A settlement payment by a joint tortfeasor does not constitute an indirect payment of a separate claim against the state under § 4-160b (a) when the settlement satisfies the plaintiff's distinct claim for damages against the private tortfeasor.
- The prohibition against double recovery did not bar the plaintiff's action because the plaintiff's loss had not been adjudicated on the merits, no damages judgment had been rendered, and no judgment had been paid in full.
- The state may file a notice of apportionment against a nonparty joint tortfeasor or introduce evidence of the settlement in a trial to the court to assist in determining fair compensation.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's settlement with CVS Pharmacy constituted an indirect payment of the plaintiff's claim against the state under General Statutes § 4-160b (a), thereby eliminating the waiver of sovereign immunity and depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the common-law prohibition against double recovery barred the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against the state after the settlement with another alleged tortfeasor.
- Whether the state could address any alleged overcompensation through apportionment procedures or evidence of the settlement at a court trial.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (14)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 303 n.2, 313, 828 A.2d 549 (2003)(followed)
- Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation, 330 Conn. 400, 416, 195 A.3d 664 (2018)(followed)
- Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115, 141–42, 210 A.3d 1 (2019)(followed)
- Envirotest Systems Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 293 Conn. 382, 385, 388, 978 A.2d 49 (2009)(followed)
- Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96, 99, 110–13, 856 A.2d 335 (2004)(followed and clarified)
- Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 340 Conn. 711, 749–52, A.3d (2021)(followed)
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67, 69, 71, 74 n.8, 75, 557 A.2d 540 (1989)(followed and distinguished)
- Collins v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 257 Conn. 718, 735–36, 778 A.2d 899 (2001)(followed)
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc., 239 Conn. 144, 168, 681 A.2d 293 (1996)(followed)
- Robbins v. Physicians for Women’s Health, LLC, 311 Conn. 707, 720–21, 90 A.3d 925 (2014)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…