Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CT Supreme Court Says Tort Recovery Available to Some Same-Sex Partners Prevented from Marrying
Connecticut's loss-of-consortium tort recovery statute allows a person whose spouse has been injured to recover damages from the tortfeasor. Until July, the requirement that the injured person be the claimant's spouse had seemed set in stone. But in conjunction with a medical malpractice case, Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled in Mueller v. Tepler, 2014 Conn. Lexis 251 (7/16/14), that a same-sex partner is entitled to seek damages for loss of consortium if she can prove that she and her deceased partner would have been married had the state not unconstitutionally barred them from marrying at the time of the tort. With this ruling, Connecticut becomes the first state to retroactively recognize the tort-recovery rights of same-sex partners who would have been married but for laws prohibiting them from doing so.
The case concerns a deceased woman, Margaret Mueller, who was misdiagnosed in 2001 by Dr. Iris Wertheim as having ovarian cancer, when in fact Mueller had cancer of the appendix. Mueller had a tumor surgically removed and analyzed: The pathology report stated that she suffered from cancer of the appendix. Dr. Wertheim stuck to her original diagnosis, however, and Mueller underwent chemotherapy cycles for the wrong cancer for four years. When the patient obtained another opinion and learned that she had been misdiagnosed, she also learned that her cancer had advanced too far and that she would soon die. Mueller died in 2009. Her estate collected $2.45 million in medical malpractice damages. The woman's longterm same-sex partner, Charlotte Stacey, sought damages for loss of consortium as part of that lawsuit, but the trial and appellate courts both ruled that such were unavailable to Stacey, as she and Mueller were not married at the time of Wertheim's malpractice. The Supreme Court, however, said that it was permitted to “expand the common-law action for loss of consortium as required to address new societal attitudes and situations.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?