Statutes of Limitations

A medical malpractice action must be brought within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-584 (West 1991). A wrongful death action must be brought within two years from the date of death, except that no such action may be brought more than five years from the date of the act or omission complained of. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-555 (West 1991). Connecticut's statutes of limitations do not provide an exception for a claimant's incompetence, including minority or insanity. Lopez v. United Nurseries, Inc., 3 Conn. App. 602, 490 A.2d 1027 (1985).

Contributory or Comparative Negligence

Connecticut has adopted the doctrine of modified comparative negligence. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-572h(b) (West 1991). Under this doctrine, a claimant's action is barred if his negligence exceeds the combined negligence of all defendants. Otherwise, the claimant's recovery is diminished in proportion to his degree of negligence. Id.

Joint and Several Liability

Connecticut has adopted a modified form of several liability. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-572h(c) (West 1991). Under this plan, joint tortfeasors are generally only severally liable; however, a claimant may seek relief from the court within one year from the entry of final judgment if any portion thereof has not been satisfied. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-572h(g) (West 1991). Upon such a showing, the court must re-allocate liability for the unsatisfied portion of the judgment based upon the other joint tortfeasors' relative degrees of fault. Id.

Contribution

In Connecticut, joint tortfeasors are afforded a right of contribution in medical malpractice actions. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-572h(1) (West 1991). A new type of pleading referred to as an "apportionment complaint" is used to bring the third person from whom contribution is sought into the main action. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-102b (West Supp. 1997).

Vicarious Liability

Connecticut has not applied the doctrine of ostensible or apparent agency as a means of imposing liability on hospitals for the negligence of their independently-contracted physicians. One court has noted, however, that cases from other jurisdictions allowing ostensible agency are persuasive, and that the existence of apparent authority is a factual issue. Leconche v. Elliners, No. CV88 34 83 12, 1991 WL 144528 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991).

Expert Testimony

Expert testimony is generally required to establish a claim for medical malpractice, unless the lack of due care is so gross as to afford almost a presumption of negligence. Guzze v. New Britain General Hospital, 16 Conn. App. 480, 547 A.2d 944, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 823, 552 A.2d 430 (1988) (granting a physician's motion for summary judgment due to claimant's inability to offer expert testimony).

Damage Caps

Connecticut does not impose a cap on damages recoverable in medical malpractice actions.

Statutory Cap on Attorneys' Fees

An attorney may only receive a contingency fee up to the following amounts: 33 1/3 percent of the first $300,000, 25 percent of the next $300,000, 20 percent of the next $300,000, 15 percent of the next $300,000, and 10 percent of any amount which exceeds $1,200,000. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-251c (West 1991).

Periodic Payments

Damages up to $200,000 must be paid in a lump sum. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-225d (West 1991). For damages in excess of $200,000, the parties must attempt to agree on the manner of payment, and following such an agreement, the court's approval must be sought. Id. If the parties are unable to agree, however, the court must order a lump sum payment of the remaining damages. Id. Notably, the claimant's death does not terminate the judgment debtor's obligation under a periodic payment plan. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-225d(f) (West 1991).

Collateral Source Rule

Connecticut does not adhere to the rule barring evidence of payment from a collateral source. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-225a (West 1991). Benefits received by a claimant from collateral sources must be used to reduce the claimant's recoverable economic damages. Payments or contributions made by the claimant in order to obtain such benefits serve to offset this reduction. Id. Unless otherwise provided by law, the provider of the benefit has no subrogation rights against the recovery. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-225c (West 1991 & Supp. 1997).

Pre-Judgment Interest

Connecticut law provides that a claimant may file an offer of judgment with the clerk of court before trial, and the defendant must either accept the offer and have judgment entered accordingly, or reject the offer. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-192(a) (West 1991 & Supp. 1997). If, after trial, the court determines the claimant recovered an amount equal to or greater than that stated in the offer of judgment, the claimant is entitled to pre-judgment interest at twelve percent. Id. Interest accrues from the date the action was filed, unless the offer of judgment was filed eighteen months or more from the time the action was filed, in which case interest accrues from the date the offer was filed. Id.

Patient Compensation Funds and Physician Insurance

Connecticut does not have a patient compensation fund or a program of state-sponsored liability insurance for physicians.

Immunities

Political subdivisions are generally liable to the same extent as private individuals, subject to a number of exceptions not relevant to health care. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-557n (West Supp. 1997).

Actions against the state must be presented to the state Claims Commissioner. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 4-142 (West Supp. 1997). For claims in excess of $7,500, the Claims Commissioner, after a hearing, may refer the claim to the General Assembly with the recommendation that the claim be paid or not paid, or he may waive the state's immunity and allow the claim to be brought in court. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 4-159 and 4-160 (West Supp. 1997). Under the terms of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 4-165 (West Supp. 1997), state officers and employees are immune from suit for their negligence.

Arbitration

Connecticut does not require the reference of medical malpractice panels to an arbitrator or screening panel. However, upon the agreement of all parties concerned, a malpractice screening panel consisting of one lawyer and two physicians will review a medical malpractice claim and enter a finding as to liability only. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 38a-33 (West Supp. 1997). The panel's findings on liability issues, if unanimous, are admissible in subsequent court proceedings. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 38a-36 (West 1992).