Keenan v. Yale New Haven Hospital
Cases that cite this one
73 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc. (Conn. 2008)
- Zorick v. Schwartz, No. Cv 96 056 58 14 (Jul. 19, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Sherman v. Ronco (Conn. 2010)
- Jonap v. Silver (Conn. App. Ct. 1983)
- Chreiman v. Itt Hartford Group, No. 545908 (Mar. 29, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Amaya v. Stamford Propane, Inc., No. Cv94 0139954 S (Jun. 5, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
- Daum v. Stamford Propane, Inc., No. Cv94 0139456 S (Jun. 5, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
- Gossett v. Stefanov, No. Cv 97 0074087 (Dec. 12, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Connecticut National Bank v. D'Onofrio (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
- Vaughan v. Mural Transport, Inc., No. Cv 94 0064472 (Nov. 20, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Brown v. McElroy, No. Cv 91 0394813 (Jan. 25, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
- Ramsey v. Town of North Branford, No. Cv93 0347482s (Mar. 2, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
- Design Coatings v. Natural Gas Co., No. Cv 87 0088318s (Jun. 26, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
- Peterson v. Yale New Haven Hospital, No. Cv92 &8212 0337617 S (Aug. 13, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
- Loehn v. Pusch, No. Cv86 235373 (Sep. 1, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
- Sharp v. Mitchell (Conn. 1988)
- Saphir v. Neustadt (Conn. 1979)
- Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C. (Conn. 2017)
- Czahur v. Koeller, No. Cv 01 0456412 S (Feb. 14, 2003) (Connecticut Superior Court 2003)
- Kevin Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co. (Conn. 2002)
- Wagner v. Georgetown University Medical Center (D.C. 2001)
- Infante v. Zurich American Ins. Co., No. Cv95 032 74 22 S (Jun. 5, 2001) (Connecticut Superior Court 2001)
- Blake v. Vanu, No. Cv97 034 24 00 S (Jan. 7, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
- Greatsinger v. Saturn of Branford, No. Cv 97 0575147s (May 23, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
- Andretta v. Rudig, No. Cv99 06 53 40 (Aug. 17, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
A malpractice complaint, based on negligence alleged to have occurred on December 14, 1967, was filed against the defendants Yale New Haven Hospital and Lycurgus M. Davey, a surgeon, on December 13,1968. The action against the hospital was withdrawn. An amendment to the complaint filed August 11, 1972, alleged an assault by the defendant Davey and, as made more specific, alleged that he “assaulted the plaintiff by performing a surgical operation on him without securing his informed consent.”
Summary judgment was rendered by the court in favor of the defendant on the assault count in that it is barred by General Statutes § 52-584. This appeal is from that judgment.
Amendments relate back to the date of the complaint unless they allege a new cause of action. Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 486, 352 A.2d 277. An amendment to a complaint which sets up a new and different cause of action speaks as of the date when it is filed. Kelsall v. Kelsall, 139 Conn. 163, 165, 90 A.2d 878; see Gallo v. G. Fox & Co., 148 Conn. 327, 330, 170 A.2d 724; Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc. v. M & M Transportation Co., 128 Conn. 107, 108, 20 A.2d 621. A cause of action must arise from a single group of facts. Gallo v. G. Fox & Co., supra; Veits v. Hartford, 134 Conn. 428, 434, 58 A.2d 389. To relate back to the institution of the action the amendment must arise from a single group of facts. Kelsall v. Kelsall, supra; see Gallo v. G. Fox & Co., supra.
*286 Acts amounting to negligence and acts amounting to assault and battery, not related to lack of due care, do not constitute a single group of facts. They are separate and distinct. It is clear that the count alleging an assault, as made more specific, raises a cause of action separate and distinct from the negligence originally pleaded. Consequently, the amendment speaks as of August 11,1972, the date when it was filed. The amendment is barred by General Statutes §52-584 and was properly disposed of by summary judgment.
There is no error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.