DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Connecticut ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Connecticut

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Risk Management / Claims Administrator / Insurance Carrier]
[Hospital / Medical Group / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Patient/Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Care: [Date or Date Range]
Healthcare Provider(s): [Provider Name(s)]
Facility: [Hospital/Clinic Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the medical malpractice that occurred during [his/her] care and treatment at [Facility Name] by [Healthcare Provider Name(s)]. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes governing medical malpractice claims.

I. CONNECTICUT-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

This claim is governed by Connecticut General Statutes, including Chapter 899 (Malpractice) and Sections 52-190a through 52-190c, which establish the standards and procedures for medical malpractice actions in Connecticut.

B. Statute of Limitations and Repose

Statute of Limitations: Under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-584, actions for personal injury must be commenced within two (2) years from the date when the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered.

Discovery Rule: Connecticut applies the discovery rule. The limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the injury and its connection to the alleged malpractice. Lagassey v. State, 268 Conn. 723 (2004).

Statute of Repose: Notwithstanding the discovery rule, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-584 imposes an absolute three (3) year statute of repose from the date of the act or omission complained of.

Continuous Treatment Doctrine: The statute of limitations may be tolled during a continuous course of treatment for the same condition. Blanchette v. Barrett, 229 Conn. 256 (1994).

Minors: For minors under the age of eighteen, the action must be commenced within two years after the child reaches age eighteen, but in no event more than three years after the act or omission. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-584.

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent care: [Date(s)]
- Date of discovery: [Date]
- Two-year limitations period expires: [Date]
- Three-year repose period expires: [Date]

C. Modified Comparative Fault

Connecticut follows modified comparative fault with a 51% bar. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-572h, a plaintiff may not recover damages if their negligence was greater than the combined negligence of all defendants. If the plaintiff's negligence is 50% or less, damages are reduced proportionally.

Our investigation has determined that our client was in no way negligent or at fault for the injuries sustained.

D. Standard of Care Under Connecticut Law

Under Connecticut law, a healthcare provider must exercise that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession in the same or similar locality. Pisel v. Stamford Hosp., 180 Conn. 314 (1980).

"Similar Health Care Provider" Definition: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-184c defines a "similar health care provider" as one who:
1. Is trained and experienced in the same specialty; and
2. Is certified by the appropriate board, if the defendant is certified.

E. Good Faith Certificate and Opinion Letter - CRITICAL

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-190a, a written opinion letter from a "similar health care provider" and a good faith certificate are REQUIRED at the time of filing. The certificate must:

1. Be signed by the attorney or party;
2. State that a reasonable inquiry has been made;
3. State that the inquiry provided a good faith belief that grounds exist for an action; and
4. Be accompanied by a written opinion of a similar health care provider that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence.

Failure to file these documents may result in dismissal. Bennett v. New Milford Hosp., Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (2011).

Certification: We have obtained a written opinion letter from a similar health care provider who has reviewed the relevant medical records and has concluded that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence.

F. Expert Witness Requirements

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-184c, expert testimony from a "similar health care provider" is required to establish the standard of care and its breach. The expert must:

1. Be trained and experienced in the same specialty as the defendant;
2. Be certified by the appropriate specialty board if the defendant is certified; and
3. Have experience treating the condition at issue.

G. Damage Caps

Connecticut does not impose caps on compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases.

Punitive Damages: Punitive damages in Connecticut are limited to the plaintiff's litigation costs, including attorney's fees. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-240b.

Collateral Source Rule: Connecticut has modified the collateral source rule. Evidence of collateral source payments is admissible, and the court may reduce the award to avoid double recovery. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-225a.

H. Informed Consent

Connecticut recognizes informed consent as a basis for medical malpractice liability. A physician must disclose material risks of the proposed treatment, alternatives, and consequences of no treatment. Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n, 191 Conn. 282 (1983).

The standard is objective: what a reasonable patient would want to know. Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians & Surgeons, P.C., 254 Conn. 131 (2000).

I. Vicarious Liability

Hospital Liability: Connecticut hospitals may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees under respondeat superior. Cefaratti v. Aranow, 321 Conn. 637 (2016).

Apparent Agency: Connecticut recognizes apparent agency liability when patients reasonably believe physicians are hospital employees. Cefaratti v. Aranow, 321 Conn. 637 (2016).

J. Loss of Chance Doctrine

Connecticut recognizes the loss of chance doctrine. A plaintiff may recover for the loss of a chance of survival or better outcome caused by medical negligence. Borkowski v. Sachs, 217 Conn. 441 (1991). However, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence more likely than not caused the loss of chance.

K. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Connecticut recognizes res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice cases where the injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury. Shelnitz v. Greenberg, 200 Conn. 58 (1986).

L. Apology Exclusion

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-184d, a healthcare provider's expression of sympathy, condolence, or apology is inadmissible as evidence of liability.

M. Government Immunity

Claims against the State of Connecticut are brought before the Claims Commissioner. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4-141 et seq. Municipal hospitals may have limited immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-557n.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to the care and treatment of [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete medical records (paper and electronic)
• All versions of electronic medical records (including audit trails)
• Nursing notes, medication administration records, and flow sheets
• All diagnostic imaging studies and reports
• Laboratory results and pathology reports
• Operative reports and anesthesia records
• Consultation notes
• Informed consent documents
• Incident/occurrence reports
• Peer review materials (to the extent discoverable)
• Policies, procedures, and protocols in effect at the time of treatment
• Credentialing files for involved healthcare providers
• Staffing records and schedules
• Equipment maintenance records
• Any recorded statements

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under Connecticut law. Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (1996).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Patient History and Presentation

[Client Name], a [age]-year-old [male/female], presented to [Facility/Provider] on [Date] with [chief complaint/reason for visit]:

Relevant Medical History:
- [Relevant past medical history]
- [Relevant surgical history]
- [Current medications]
- [Allergies]

Presenting Symptoms:
- [Symptom 1]
- [Symptom 2]
- [Symptom 3]

B. Chronology of Negligent Care

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Medical Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the healthcare provider(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under Connecticut law, [Defendant Healthcare Provider] was required to exercise that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same specialty in the same or similar locality.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Defendant] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name, M.D.], a board-certified [Specialty] physician licensed in [State] with [number] years of experience. [Dr./Expert Name] has concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that:

1. [Defendant Provider] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a direct and proximate cause of [Client Name]'s injuries; and
3. Had appropriate care been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

V. CAUSATION

A. Factual and Proximate Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the injuries described herein. Under Connecticut law, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Mirjavadi v. Vakilzadeh, 310 Conn. 176 (2013).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Physical Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's medical negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Injuries:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]

Current Medical Status:
[Describe current condition and prognosis]

B. Medical Expenses

Past Medical Expenses:

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

C. Lost Earnings

D. Non-Economic Damages

• Physical pain and suffering
• Mental anguish
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Permanent disability/disfigurement
• Loss of consortium (spouse's claim)
• Emotional distress

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of the standard of care, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Hospital liability coverage (if applicable)

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Medical records supporting the claim
• Medical bills and itemized statements
• Employment and wage documentation
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Photographs (if applicable)
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear medical negligence that caused significant harm to our client. We have obtained the required opinion letter from a similar health care provider and are prepared to file the good faith certificate required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-190a.

We are prepared to litigate this matter through trial in the Superior Court of [County] Judicial District, Connecticut if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Connecticut Bar Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

CONNECTICUT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Good Faith Certificate Required: Must file at time of suit with opinion letter from similar health care provider.

• Similar Health Care Provider: Expert must be trained and experienced in same specialty and board-certified if defendant is certified.

• No Damage Caps: Connecticut does not cap compensatory damages; punitive damages limited to litigation costs.

• Modified Comparative Fault: 51% bar - plaintiff cannot recover if more negligent than combined defendants.

• Collateral Source Rule Modified: Evidence of collateral payments admissible; court may reduce award.

• Loss of Chance Recognized: Connecticut allows recovery for loss of chance of survival or better outcome.

• Apology Exclusion: Expressions of sympathy inadmissible as evidence of liability.

• Short Repose Period: 3 years from act/omission - among the shorter periods nationally.

• Venue: Proper venue is the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the injury occurred. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 51-345.

• Pretrial Screening Panels: Medical malpractice cases may be referred to a pretrial screening panel.

This template is specific to Connecticut law. Medical malpractice claims in Connecticut have strict good faith certificate and opinion letter requirements. Always verify current law and consult with qualified Connecticut medical malpractice counsel.