Gambardella v. Schmitt

Craig Gambardella, Administrator et al. v. Heiko Schmitt, M.D. et al

No. CV136039122S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, Bridgeport

July 18, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Dale W. Radcliffe, J.

FACTS

These consolidated medical malpractice actions were each instituted by Craig Gambardella as Administrator of the Estate of the decedent, Tara Gambardella. In each of the actions, Craig Gambardella also advances a claim for loss of consortium, as the surviving spouse of Tara Gambardella.

Six (6) Defendants are named in the initial action (CV-13-6039122 S) Heiko Schmitt, M.D., Jonathan Hammond, M.D., Connecticut Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC, HHC PhysiciansCare Inc., d/b/a Hartford Healthcare Medical Group, Hartford Clinical Associates, PC, and Hartford Healthcare Corporation.

The second claim is pled against the State of Connecticut University of Connecticut Health Center, and two physicians who, it is claimed, were employees of the State of Connecticut. The physicians are Peter Schulman, M.D. and W David Hager, M.D.

In each action the Plaintiffs have instituted an action for wrongful death, and derivative claims for loss of consortium, arising out of the death of Tara Gambardella. The decedent died on October 31, 2011.

The Plaintiff claims, in his complaint, that the decedent between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2011, came under the care of Dr. Schmitt and Dr. Hammond. It is further alleged that Tara Gambardella came under the care of the corporate or institutional Defendants, Connecticut Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC, Hartford Health Care Corporation, Hartford Clinical Associates, PC, and HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc., d/b/a Hartford Health Care Medical Group.

It is claimed that the decedent's death on October 31, 2011, resulted from a deviation from the applicable standard of care by one or both of the individual Defendants, and that one or more of the four (4) institutional Defendants are vicariously liable, based upon the application of respondent superior .

The Defendants, HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. and Hartford Healthcare Corporation, have moved for summary judgment.

HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc., maintains that it was not in existence between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2011, that it did not own the Defendant Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC or Hartford Clinical Associates, PC, and that it did not employ Dr. Jonathan Hammond, or provide any care or treatment to the decedent, Tara Gambardella.

Hartford Healthcare Corporation insists that it did not own either Connecticut Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC, or Hartford Clinical Associates, PC. The entity further claims that, acting through its agents or employees, it provided no care or treatment to Tara Gambardella.

Both HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. and Hartford Health Care Corporation argue that no genuine issue of material fact is present, and that each is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dr. Hammond has been employed by HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. from 2013, to the present. Although Dr. Hammond originally stated that he was employed by the Defendant Connecticut Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC, between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2011, his supplemental discovery responses have clarified any ambiguity contradiction or confusion.

Dr. Hammond's employment history, as established by his Supplemental Discovery Responses, is:

1) Hiroyoski Takata, M.D., PC (1991-1995).

2) Connecticut Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates, LLC (August 1995 - February 2011).

3) Hartford PhysiciansCare, Inc. d/b/a Hartford Healthcare Medical Group (2013 - Present).

4) HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. d/b/a Hartford Healthcare Medical Group (2013 - Present).

On December 31, 2012, the Defendant, Hartford Clinical Associates, PC, entered to an " Asset Purchase Agreement" with HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc.

The Buyer, HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc., at the time of the transaction, was a subsidiary of the Defendant Hartford Health Care Corporation, its parent company.

Section 2.3 of the Asset Purchase Agreement reads:

Section 2.3 Buyer's Assumption of Liabilities

(a) The Buyer hereby assumes from the Seller only the Assumed Liabilities and does not assume, and shall not be deemed to have assumed or be liable for, any of the Excluded Liabilities or any other Liability of the Seller of any nature whatsoever.

(b) The Excluded Liabilities shall remain the sole responsibility of, and shall be retained, paid, performed and discharged solely by the Seller.

The Asset Purchase Agreement defines " Excluded Liabilities" to include:

all Liabilities of the Seller other than the Assumed Liabilities, whether or not related to the Business or the Purchased Assets, including, without limitations:. . .

(h) all Liabilities arising out of, or relating to, any conduct or alleged conduct of any employee or independent contractor of the Seller . . .

The " Buyer, " HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc., did not agree to assume liability for the negligent acts or omissions of agents, servants, and/or employees of the Seller, during the course of providing medical care, treatment and services.

HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. was incorporated in January of 2012, two months after the death of Tara Gambardella on October 31, 2011.

The Plaintiff, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, filed by the Defendants HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc., and its parent company, Hartford Health Care Corporation, claim that HHC PhysiciansCare, Inc. is a successor corporation to Hartford Clinical Associates, PC, and is liable for any negligence of Dr. Hammond and other Hartford Clinical Associates, PC's agents or employees, committed while administering care and treatment to the decedent.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT--STANDARD OF REVIEW

Connecticut Practice Book Section 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith, if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any material fact remains between the parties, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732 744-45, 660 A.2d 810 (1995).

The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Webster Bank v. Oakley, 265 Conn. 539, 545, 830 A.2d 139 (2003). A material fact has been defined as one which will make a difference in the result. Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002): Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 578, 573 A.2d 699 (1990).

Although the burden is on the party seeking to obtain summary judgment, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment must provide an...