Wolfork v. Yale Medical Group
Citations
- 335 Conn. 448
Syllabus
The plaintiff, W, who had been appointed by the Probate Court as administra- trix of the estate of her deceased son, D, sought to recover damages on behalf of D's estate from the defendants, various health care provid- ers, for medical negligence. Approximately three years after W com- menced the action, the trial court issued a notice indicating that the case had been reported settled and ordered the parties to file any with- drawals or motions for stipulated judgment by a certain date or the case would be dismissed. At around the same time, the Probate Court appointed D's father, P, as coadministrator of D's estate. W failed to file the withdrawal by the deadline, and the court issued a second notice, again ordering the parties to file the necessary paperwork. W successfully sought an extension of time to file the withdrawal for the purpose of scheduling a hearing with the Probate Court and P to confirm that she had the authority to unilaterally withdraw the action. W failed to file the withdrawal by the extended deadline, however, and the trial court dismissed the action. Thereafter, P moved to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal, claiming that he had been prevented from request- ing a further extension of time to withdraw or pursue the action due to mistake, accident or fraud. Specifically, P claimed that, at the time W commenced the action, she had misrepresented to the Probate Court that she was unaware of any pending litigation and that, after the Probate Court ordered W to turn over the case file to P for the hearing that W had requested, P expected that the action would remain pending and open until after the hearing. P also claimed that, in light of the ongoing issues in the Probate Court, W's failure to request additional extensions of time within which to file the withdrawal was a result of mistake or accident, and that W's counsel was aware of these circumstances but nonetheless failed to request an extension of time. Finally, P indicated that the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming entry of final summary judgment on workers’ compensation immunity, noting that the intentional tort exception set forth in section 440.11(l)(b
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.