Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** GLORIA TRIMEL v. LAWRENCE AND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REHABILITATION CENTER ET AL. (SC 16493) Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Zarella and Cutsumpas, Js. Argued November 2 officially released December 11, 2001 Counsel William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas J. Airone, for the appellant (plaintiff). Michael E. Driscoll, with whom, on the brief, was Jeffrey F. Buebendorf, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this medical malpractice action, we granted the petition of the plaintiff, Gloria Trimel, for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court s granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Lawrence and Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center and Flanders Health Center. Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 61 Conn. App. 353, 364, 764 A.2d 203 (2001). At issue is whether the trial court properly concluded that the allegations concerning the plaintiff s fall from a wheelchair during a physical therapy session conducted on the defendants premises asserted a claim of medical malpractice, rather than ordinary negligence, thereby requiring the filing of a certificate of good faith pursuant to General Statutes § 52-190a.1 We granted certification limited to the following issue: Did the trial court, in holding that all the plaintiff s claims sounded in medical malpractice rather than in ordinary negligence, usurp the function of a jury by deciding a question of fact in a summary judgment motion? Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 255 Conn. 948, 769 A.2d 64 (2001). Having reviewed the record on appeal and having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 General Statutes § 52-190a (a) provides in relevant part: No civil action shall be filed to recover damages resulting from personal injury . . . in which it is alleged that such injury . . . resulted from the negligence of a health care provider, unless the attorney or party filing the action has made a reasonable inquiry as permitted by the circumstances to determine that there are grounds for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant. The complaint or initial pleading shall contain a certificate, on a form prescribed by the rules of the superior court, of the attorney or party filing the action that such reasonable inquiry gave rise to a good faith belief that grounds exist for an action against each named defendant. . . .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
