No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The plaintiff physician sought to recover damages from the defendant medi- cal practice and its sole member for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the termination of her employ- ment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judg- ment, concluding that the plaintiff had not provided an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the extreme and outrageous conduct element of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, or as to the duty and causation elements of the negligence claim. From the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appealed to this court, challenging the propriety of the court's determination. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendants as to the plaintiff's claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; that court having properly resolved the issues, this court adopted the trial court's thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law. Argued May 28—officially released September 10, 2019
What Happened:
Dr. Vodovskaia-Scandura, a physician, sued Hartford Headache Center after being fired from her job. She claimed the medical practice and its owner were negligent and intentionally caused her severe emotional distress through how they handled her termination. She wanted money damages for the harm she said they caused.
What the Court Decided:
The court ruled against the doctor and dismissed her case before it could go to trial. The judge found that she didn't provide enough evidence to prove her claims. Specifically, the court said she couldn't show that her employers engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct" - a key requirement for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress. The medical practice won the case completely.
Why This Matters for Workers:
This case shows how difficult it can be to win emotional distress claims against employers after being fired. Courts require very strong evidence that an employer's behavior was truly extreme and outrageous - not just unfair or hurtful. Simply being terminated, even if done poorly, usually isn't enough. Workers considering such claims need substantial proof of truly shocking employer conduct that goes far beyond normal workplace conflicts or even wrongful termination.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Vodovskaia-Scandura from the same court.
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by…
The plaintiff insured appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defen- dant insurance company on her amended complaint alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance dispute concerning…
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's order remanding its administra- tive appeal from the decision of its human rights referee, which concluded that the defendant employer had discriminated against its former employee, M, on the basis of her disability but that M failed to establish that…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.