Wozniak v. New Britain General Hospital, No. Cv 95 0551364 (Jun. 5, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Wozniak v. New Britain General Hospital, No. Cv 95 0551364 (Jun. 5, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6712

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 5, 1997

DocketNo. CV 95 0551364

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6712 (Wozniak v. New Britain General Hospital, No. Cv 95 0551364 (Jun. 5, 1997)) 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

Wozniak v. New Britain General Hospital, No. Cv 95 0551364 (Jun. 5, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6712 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS'SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT (#156 and #158) This court finds that the substitute complaint of May 24, 1996 as repled by the plaintiffs has addressed fully the pleading deficiencies which were the basis for this court's decision of May 15, 1996, to strike the complaint.

As to the filial loss of consortium claims, counts 13, 14, 27 and 28, this court adopts the reasoning of those superior court cases which have stricken this claim. These cases are enumerated in Section D of the defendant New Britain General Hospital's November 27, 1996, memorandum of law in support of their motion to strike plaintiff's substitute complaint. Included is this court's decision in Olkowski v.Dew, 9 CSCR 719 (December 9, 1994).

Accordingly, the defendants' motions to strike the May 24, 1996 substitute complaint are denied as to all counts except counts 13, 14, 27 and 28, the filial loss of consortium claims. The motions to strike are granted as to counts 13, 14, 27 and 28.

Mary R. Hennessey, Judge CT Page 6713

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS'SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT (#156 and #158) This court finds that the substitute complaint of May 24, 1996 as repled by the plaintiffs has addressed fully the pleading deficiencies which were the basis for this court's decision of May 15, 1996, to strike the complaint.

As to the filial loss of consortium claims, counts 13, 14, 27 and 28, this court adopts the reasoning of those superior court cases which have stricken this claim. These cases are enumerated in Section D of the defendant New Britain General Hospital's November 27, 1996, memorandum of law in support of their motion to strike plaintiff's substitute complaint. Included is this court's decision in Olkowski v.Dew, 9 CSCR 719 (December 9, 1994).

Accordingly, the defendants' motions to strike the May 24, 1996 substitute complaint are denied as to all counts except counts 13, 14, 27 and 28, the filial loss of consortium claims. The motions to strike are granted as to counts 13, 14, 27 and 28.

Mary R. Hennessey, Judge CT Page 6713

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wozniak-v-new-britain-general-hospital-no-cv-95-0551364-jun-5-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack