Hauser v. Ursini, No. 130122 (Jul. 23, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hauser v. Ursini, No. 130122 (Jul. 23, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-ZZZZ

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1996

DocketNo. 130122

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-ZZZZ (Hauser v. Ursini, No. 130122 (Jul. 23, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hauser v. Ursini, No. 130122 (Jul. 23, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-ZZZZ (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Jack Hauser, a medical doctor, here seeks to recover compensation for medical treatment rendered the defendant Louis Ursini. Hauser also seeks compensation from Joan Ursini, Louis Ursini's wife.

The Ursinis dispute Hauser's charges, claiming the plaintiff's treatments were not reasonable. They also claim Louis Ursini's later treatments were caused by the plaintiff's CT Page 5123-AAAAA faulty treatment.

I. The court finds for the plaintiff as to Louis Ursini. The treatment the plaintiff rendered here was reasonable, and the amounts charged were reasonable. Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff to recover from Louis Ursini the sum of $42,295.00. The court will not, however, award prejudgment interest in its discretion. See Nor'easter Group, Inc. v.Colossale Concrete, Inc., 207 Conn. 468, 482.

II. As to the defendant, Joan Ursini, the plaintiff has proven he treated Louis Ursini when Louis was married to Joan, and a member of the family, and that the treatments were reasonable and necessary. Under Section 46b-37(b)(1) of the General Statutes, each spouse is jointly liable for reasonable and necessary services of a physician for a family member. The amendment of Section 46b-37, subsection (e) makes clear that division (1) of 46b-37(b) applies to "expenses incurred by and for the benefit of each spouse." Although Yale UniversitySchool of Medicine v. Collier, 206 Conn. 31 (1988) concerned subdivision (2) of Section 46b-37(b), the legislature in amending Section 46-37(e) applied the abandonment defense not only to subdivision (2) but to "subdivision (1) to (4), inclusive" as to spouses.

Accordingly, judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as to Joan Ursini in the amount of $42,295.00.

/s/ McDonald, J. McDONALD

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Jack Hauser, a medical doctor, here seeks to recover compensation for medical treatment rendered the defendant Louis Ursini. Hauser also seeks compensation from Joan Ursini, Louis Ursini's wife.

The Ursinis dispute Hauser's charges, claiming the plaintiff's treatments were not reasonable. They also claim Louis Ursini's later treatments were caused by the plaintiff's CT Page 5123-AAAAA faulty treatment.

I. The court finds for the plaintiff as to Louis Ursini. The treatment the plaintiff rendered here was reasonable, and the amounts charged were reasonable. Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff to recover from Louis Ursini the sum of $42,295.00. The court will not, however, award prejudgment interest in its discretion. See Nor'easter Group, Inc. v.Colossale Concrete, Inc., 207 Conn. 468, 482.

II. As to the defendant, Joan Ursini, the plaintiff has proven he treated Louis Ursini when Louis was married to Joan, and a member of the family, and that the treatments were reasonable and necessary. Under Section 46b-37(b)(1) of the General Statutes, each spouse is jointly liable for reasonable and necessary services of a physician for a family member. The amendment of Section 46b-37, subsection (e) makes clear that division (1) of 46b-37(b) applies to "expenses incurred by and for the benefit of each spouse." Although Yale UniversitySchool of Medicine v. Collier, 206 Conn. 31 (1988) concerned subdivision (2) of Section 46b-37(b), the legislature in amending Section 46-37(e) applied the abandonment defense not only to subdivision (2) but to "subdivision (1) to (4), inclusive" as to spouses.

Accordingly, judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as to Joan Ursini in the amount of $42,295.00.

/s/ McDonald, J. McDONALD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5123-ZZZZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauser-v-ursini-no-130122-jul-23-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack