Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

KAREN BEDNARZ v. EYE PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT, P.C., ET AL. (SC 17934)
Katz, Palmer, Zarella, Schaller and Jones, Js. Argued March 14--officially released June 3, 2008

Carey B. Reilly, with whom were Cynthia C. Bott and, on the brief, James D. Horwitz, for the appellant (plaintiff). Lorinda S. Coon, with whom was David A. Haught, for the appellee (defendant Peter G. Burch).

Opinion

KATZ, J. The plaintiff, Karen Bednarz, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant Peter G. Burch1 in her medical malpractice action. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that her action against the defendant was time barred because there were insufficient facts in dispute to toll the period of repose under General Statutes

Download Bednarz v. Eye Physicians of Central Connecticut, P.C..pdf

Connecticut Law