Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vodovskaia-Scandura v. Hartford Headache Center, LLC

Appellate Court of Connecticut

September 10, 2019

Nailia VODOVSKAIA-SCANDURA
v.
HARTFORD HEADACHE CENTER, LLC, et al.

         Argued May 28, 2019

         The Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, HHDCV136044074S, Bright, J.

Page 210

          Peter White, with whom, on the brief, was A. Paul Spinella, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

         Steven C. Rickman, with whom was Cristina Salamone, New Haven, for the appellees (defendants).

         Alvord, Elgo and Moll, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

          The plaintiff, Nailia Vodovskaia-Scandura, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, [192 Conn.App. 560] the Hartford Headache Center, LLC, and Tanya Bilchik, M.D.[1] On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to (1) the extreme and outrageous conduct element of her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and (2) the duty and causation elements of her negligence claim. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         Following the termination of her employment, the plaintiff commenced this civil action against the defendants in 2013. Her second amended complaint contained twelve counts.[2] In response, the defendants filed an answer and several special defenses. Hartford Headache Center, LLC, also filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff sounding in conversion, statutory theft, and replevin.

         The defendants thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment on all twelve counts of that complaint. In opposing the motion, the plaintiff conceded that she could not prevail on ten of her twelve counts and, thus, requested leave to amend her complaint accordingly.[3] In granting that request, the court indicated that it would consider the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in light of the allegations set forth in her revised pleading. Days later, the plaintiff filed her amended complaint, which contained two counts alleging intentional [192 Conn.App. 561] infliction of emotional distress and negligence. By memorandum of decision dated October 31, 2017, the court concluded, as a matter of law, that judgment should enter in favor of the defendants on both counts because the plaintiff had not provided an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the extreme and outrageous conduct element of her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim or the duty and causation elements of her negligence claim.[4] On appeal,

Page 211

the plaintiff challenges the propriety of that determination.

          Our examination of the pleadings, affidavits, and other proof submitted, as well as the briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades us that the judgment should be affirmed. The issues properly were resolved in the court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Vodovskaia-Scandura v. Hartford Headache Center, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV- 13-6044074-S, 2017 WL 5931296 (October 31, 2017) (reprinted at 192 Conn.App. 559, 562, 218 A.3d 209). We therefore adopt it as a proper statement of the [192 Conn.App. 562] relevant facts, issues, and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council, 311 Conn. 259, 262, 86 A.3d 463 (2014); Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C., 170 Conn.App. 79, 81, 153 A.3d 687 (2017).

          The judgment is affirmed.

          Attachment

          APPENDIX

         NAILIA VODOVSKAIA-SCANDURA v. HARTFORD HEADACHE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.[*]

          Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford

          File, No. CV-13-6044074-S

          Memorandum filed October 31, 2017

          Proceedings

          Memorandum of decision on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Motion granted in part .

          A. Paul Spinella, for the plaintiff.

          Steven C. Rickman, Hugh W. Cuthbertson and Cristina Salamone, for the defendants.

          OPINION

          BRIGHT, J.

          I

          INTRODUCTION

          This action arises out of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant Hartford Headache Center, LLC (LLC). The defendant Tanya Bilchik is the sole member of the LLC. The plaintiff’s second amended complaint dated April 29, 2015, alleged

Page 212

twelve causes of action [192 Conn.App. 563] related to how the plaintiff was treated while employed by the LLC. The defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all twelve counts. The LLC also seeks summary judgment on its six count counterclaim, which alleges that the plaintiff converted and stole records belonging to the LLC, including certain confidential patient records. In response, the plaintiff concedes that judgment should enter for the defendants on ten of the twelve counts of her complaint. She argues, however, that there are genuine issues of material fact as to her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (ninth count) and her negligence claim (eleventh count). As to the counterclaim, the plaintiff does not deny taking the records in question, but argues that the LLC’s claims are time barred. Consequently, the plaintiff asks that summary judgment enter in her favor on all six counts of the counterclaim.

          The bases for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, as pled in the second amended complaint, are that the defendants misrepresented to others that the plaintiff had engaged in improper conduct and a lack of integrity in the performance of her professional duties; the defendants solicited false complaints about the plaintiff from patients and included those falsities in patient medical records and charts; and the defendants, in an effort to distort the plaintiff’s professional achievements, omitted materials from her personal file that reflected favorably on her performance as a physician. In their motion for summary judgment, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.