Santana v. State
Citations
- 347 Conn. 601
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 4-160 (f)), the state's sovereign immunity is waived with respect to qualified medical malpractice actions, and such actions may proceed against the state without the need for prior authorization from the Claims Commissioner, but ''[a]ny such action shall be limited to medical malpractice claims only . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 52-190a (a)), in any ''civil action . . . to recover damages resulting from personal injury . . . in which it is alleged that such injury . . . resulted from the negligence of a health care provider,'' a plaintiff must ''obtain a written . . . opinion of a similar health care provider . . . that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . . .'' The plaintiffs, C and her minor child, E, sought to recover damages for the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant, the state of Connecticut, through its servants, agents, and employees, that occurred prior to and during the birth of E. C was admitted to a state hospital for an induction of labor. During labor, it was determined that E was malpositioned and that a vaginal delivery would pose risks. C was then counseled on possible delivery options, including a manual rotation of E's head to allow for the potential for a vaginal delivery. C agreed to the manual rotation, which was unsuccessful. At that point, the delivery plan was 602 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 601 Escobar-Santana v. State changed to a cesarean section. The cesarean section ultimately took an extended period of time, and E suffered permanent injuries in the pro- cess. In the first count of their complaint, the plaintiffs sought to recover for E's physical injuries. In the second count of their complaint, the plaintiffs incorporated by reference most of the allegations set forth in the first count, including all of the various ways in which the state failed to exercise reasonable care and the resulting injuries to E. The plaintiffs also alleged in the second count that C had endured a pain
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- deciding whether, for purposes of what is now General Statutes § 4-160 (f
- applying liberal rule of construction to interpret, as medical mal- practice claim, count of complaint that had been pleaded as bystander emotional distress claim
- statutory interpretation presents question of law
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lynch v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-02-06· cited 5×
- Marland v. University of Connecticut Health CenterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-12-17· cited 3×
- Jamie G. v. Dept. of Children & FamiliesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-05· cited 1×
- Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-27
- GLEN A. CANNER, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF CHARLES A. CANNER) v. GOVERNORS RIDGE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. (SC 20759) LOUIS D. PUTERI v. GOVERNORS RIDGE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-02
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone, Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-07-04· cited 282×
- Burgess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-07-09· cited 274×
- Maloney v. ConroySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-07-26· cited 266×
- Mendillo v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-25· cited 190×
- Carey v. LovettSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1993-04-06· cited 146×
- Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont· 1980-11-05· cited 95×
- Modaber v. KelleySupreme Court of Virginia· 1986-09-05· cited 60×
- LaBieniec v. BakerConnecticut Appellate Court· 1987-06-09· cited 52×
- Neuhaus v. DeCholnokySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-03· cited 41×
- Dias v. GradySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-07· cited 30×
- Smith v. BorelloCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2002-08-22· cited 30×
- Tanner v. HartogSupreme Court of Florida· 1997-05-08· cited 29×
- Shortell v. CavanaghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-03-15· cited 20×
- Williams v. Hous. Auth. of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-12-26· cited 17×
- Giannoni v. Commissioner of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-08-09· cited 15×
- In re Ava W.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-08-10· cited 10×
- Esposito v. SchiffConnecticut Appellate Court· 1995-08-15· cited 9×
- Levin v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-08-14· cited 5×
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.