Michael R. Sheldon

The case involved the conviction of Adam Benedict for one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree based on alleged incidents with a high school student while he was a substitute teacher. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses by sustaining an objection that barred cross-examination of the complainant about her pending felony narcotics charge and the conditions of her pretrial diversionary program. The appellate court agreed that the restriction unduly limited inquiry into potential motive or bias, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore reversed the judgment of conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth & Women's Center, the plaintiff sued a childbirth center and related practice for medical malpractice, claiming that certified nurse midwives and a nurse in training negligently failed to diagnose and repair a fourth-degree tear during delivery and postpartum visits, causing permanent injuries. The trial court dismissed the case under General Statutes § 52-190a(c) because the required opinion letter was written by a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist rather than a similar health care provider as defined in § 52-184c. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the letter did not satisfy the statute since the care at issue was provided by nurse midwives and nurses, not physicians.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case concerned a babysitter's lawsuit against a homeowner under Connecticut's dog bite statute, General Statutes § 22-357, seeking damages for potential rabies exposure and resulting injections after the homeowner's dogs were near a rabid raccoon in the yard while the plaintiff was supervising the children. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability because the dogs had not "done any damage" within the meaning of the statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute imposes strict liability only for harm caused by a dog's active, voluntary, vicious, or mischievous conduct, not for passive or innocent behavior, and that the undisputed facts showed no such active conduct by the dogs here. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the statute should be applied more broadly or that a factual dispute existed regarding the dogs' actions.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in Madison, Connecticut, where the plaintiffs sued the defendants for trespass and private nuisance arising from the defendants' use of part of the plaintiffs' land for a gravel driveway, retaining wall, vehicle storage, and other activities. The defendants denied the claims and asserted a counterclaim for adverse possession, arguing they and prior owners had openly and continuously used the disputed area for over fifteen years without consent. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs $7,000 in damages on the trespass claim (finding nuisance abandoned), rejected the adverse possession counterclaim for failure to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession of a specific portion of the property for the required period, and quieted title in the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendants challenged the factual findings as clearly erroneous, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's credibility determinations and evidentiary rulings were within its discretion and supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for adverse possession.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved Maria Claudio's appeal from the denial of unemployment compensation benefits after her employer, a childcare facility, terminated her for missing more than three consecutive days of work without calling in or providing required medical documentation. The employment security appeals referee found that Claudio had been discharged for willful misconduct under General Statutes § 31-236(a)(2)(B), a determination affirmed by the board of review and the trial court. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the judgment, concluding that the board's factual findings were supported by the record and its legal conclusion was consistent with the Unemployment Compensation Act. The court noted the limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters and that Claudio had not properly presented supporting arguments or new evidence. The decision turned on the employer's policy requiring notification and documentation for extended absences, which Claudio failed to follow despite having the means to do so.

labor & employmentprocedure