Johnson v. Somogyi, No. Cv-88-0353380s (Mar. 31, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Johnson v. Somogyi, No. Cv-88-0353380s (Mar. 31, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2913

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1992

DocketNo. CV-88-0353380S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2913 (Johnson v. Somogyi, No. Cv-88-0353380s (Mar. 31, 1992)) 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

Johnson v. Somogyi, No. Cv-88-0353380s (Mar. 31, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2913 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this malpractice action defendants, Bradley Memorial Hospital and Balazs Somogyi M.D. separately move for summary judgment on the ground that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, C.G.S. 52-584 in that plaintiff discovered his injury or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury more than two years before this action was brought.

It is evident that to this court, that there is a material question of fact as to when plaintiff discovered actionable harm or a causal relationship between her discomfort and the surgery involved, making a decision by way of summary judgment inappropriate. Catz v. Rubenstein, 201 Conn. 38 (1989) Hollender v. Schoolinik, 2 CSCR 638, 13 CLT 622 (1987).

Motions for Summary Judgment denied.

WAGNER, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this malpractice action defendants, Bradley Memorial Hospital and Balazs Somogyi M.D. separately move for summary judgment on the ground that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, C.G.S. 52-584 in that plaintiff discovered his injury or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury more than two years before this action was brought.

It is evident that to this court, that there is a material question of fact as to when plaintiff discovered actionable harm or a causal relationship between her discomfort and the surgery involved, making a decision by way of summary judgment inappropriate. Catz v. Rubenstein, 201 Conn. 38 (1989) Hollender v. Schoolinik, 2 CSCR 638, 13 CLT 622 (1987).

Motions for Summary Judgment denied.

WAGNER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-somogyi-no-cv-88-0353380s-mar-31-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack