May 28, 2019
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford,
HHDCV136044074S, Bright, J.
White, with whom, on the brief, was A. Paul Spinella,
Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
C. Rickman, with whom was Cristina Salamone, New Haven, for
the appellees (defendants).
Elgo and Moll, Js.
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. 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.
the termination of her employment, the plaintiff commenced
this civil action against the defendants in 2013. Her second
amended complaint contained twelve counts. 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.
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. 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. On appeal,
the plaintiff challenges the propriety of that determination.
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 courts 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
judgment is affirmed.
VODOVSKAIA-SCANDURA v. HARTFORD HEADACHE CENTER,
LLC, ET AL.[*]
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Memorandum filed October 31, 2017
Memorandum of decision on defendants motion for summary
judgment. Motion granted in part .
Paul Spinella, for the plaintiff.
C. Rickman, Hugh W. Cuthbertson and Cristina Salamone, for
action arises out of the plaintiffs employment with the
defendant Hartford Headache Center, LLC (LLC). The defendant
Tanya Bilchik is the sole member of the LLC. The plaintiffs
second amended complaint dated April 29, 2015, alleged
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 LLCs claims are time
barred. Consequently, the plaintiff asks that summary
judgment enter in her favor on all six counts of 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
plaintiffs professional achievements, omitted materials from
her personal file that reflected favorably on her performance
as a physician. In their motion for summary judgment, ...