Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 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.