Skip to main content

Doe v. Rackliffe

Citations

  • 337 Conn. 627

Syllabus

The seven plaintiffs filed six separate actions in 2014 or 2015, seeking to recover damages from the defendant pediatrician for personal injuries they sustained as a result of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse when they were his minor patients in the 1970s and 1980s. The plaintiffs The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 628 AUGUST, 2021 337 Conn. 627 Doe v. Rackliffe alleged that the defendant's practice of digitally penetrating their anuses during their annual physical examinations constituted both intentional sexual assault and medical negligence, and certain plaintiffs also alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment as to the counts of the complaints sound- ing in negligence on the ground that those claims were barred by the two to three year limitation period contained in the statute (§ 52-584) pertaining to negligence and malpractice actions. The trial court granted the defendant's motions for summary judgment as to the negligence counts, concluding that, because they alleged causes of action arising out of medical conduct, § 52-584 applied rather than the extended statute of limitations (§ 52-577d) applicable to actions for damages to minors caused by sexual assault, abuse or exploitation, which permits such actions to be brought within thirty years from the date the person attains the age of twenty-one. After withdrawing the remaining counts alleging sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plain- tiffs appealed. Held that the extended limitation period set forth in § 52- 577d did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims for injuries arising from medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, unac- companied by an originating act of intentional misconduct, and, there- fore, the plaintiffs' negligence claims were governed by the limitation period set forth in § 52-584; in light of the la

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.