Di Teresi v. Stamford Health Sys. (Summary)

NEGLIGENT/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Di Teresi v. Stamford Health Sys., No. 33052 (Conn. App. Ct. Apr. 23, 2013)

The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital after a patient’s daughter brought suit against the hospital for emotional distress after she claimed the hospital mismanaged the aftermath of a nurse’s sexual assault on her ill mother.

The daughter claimed that the hospital delayed in informing her of the incident, denying her the ability to comfort her mother and ensure that she was cared for in the wake of the assault, and the lower court granted the hospital summary judgment on the emotional distress claims, which the daughter appealed.

The appellate court held that the hospital did not have a duty to report the incident any faster than it did, and the fact that it was foreseeable that such information might cause emotional distress is not enough to establish liability, stating that allowing such liability to stand may incentivize a hospital to engage in rash reporting of unconfirmed incidents.  The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s determination that the hospital’s conduct in responding to the assault was not outrageous or reckless, and noted that even if the delay in reporting to the daughter was motivated by public relations concerns, there is no evidence that the hospital intended to inflict emotional distress.  The appellate court noted that the hospital took the time to investigate a sensitive issue and consult with counsel, behavior that the court did not find to be outside the bounds of decency.

The appellate court also affirmed summary judgment on the claim of breach of fiduciary duty, holding that the hospital did not owe a fiduciary duty to the mother because she was in the hospital for comprehensive care, not for a particular procedure performed by a physician.  In addition, the appellate court did not see the benefit gained by the hospital in withholding the news from the daughter for only a few hours, and that the brief concealment of the incident did not amount to fraud on the part of the fiduciary.