94 APRIL, 2022 343 Conn. 90
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert
referee improperly admitted certain testimony that went beyond mere
garden-variety emotional distress, this court reversed the trial court’s
judgment with respect to the issue of emotional distress damages, and
the case was ultimately remanded to the commission for a new hearing
in damages:
a. The trial court’s decision with respect to G’s claim for emotional
distress was apparently based on its view that the referee, by restricting
G to arguing for and recovering only garden-variety emotional distress
damages, did not impose sufficiently stringent sanctions for what the
trial court viewed as violations of a discovery order, and that conclusion
was not supported by either the facts or the law: although G did not
fully comply with the request for the production of her medical records,
nothing in the record suggested that the referee issued an unconditional
order requiring the production of the records, and G did not actually
violate any discovery order, insofar as the referee essentially allowed
her to opt either to produce her full medical records or to decline to do
so and to seek only garden-variety emotional distress damages; moreover,
the governing regulations afford the referee broad discretion over the
sanctions to be imposed for violations of discovery orders, and, viewing
the referee’s order as such a sanction, this court concluded that the trial
court failed to afford appropriate deference to the referee’s oversight of
the discovery process by effectively reversing the referee’s sanction on
that ground that it was too lenient; furthermore, it was clear that the
referee did not consider G’s conduct to be egregious or in bad faith,
especially in light of G’s efforts to find a compromise that would satisfy
the branch’s production requests while preserving her medical privacy.
b. The referee nonetheless abused her discretion by admitting certain
testimony that went beyond mere garden-variety emotional distress,
seemingly in violation of the referee’s own rulings, and this court could
not conclude that that error was harmless: on at least four occasions,
and over the branch’s objections, the referee allowed G or her husband
to testify as to G’s use of various over-the-counter and prescription
medications to treat her insomnia and anxiety arising from the harass-
ment, and such testimony was not merely evidence of garden-variety
emotional distress but, instead, placed G’s medical history at issue; more-
over, only one of those references was struck from the record, the referee
appeared to believe that the statements were potentially admissible and
relevant, and admitting the challenged testimony when the branch had
been denied access to G’s medical records was an abuse of discretion;
furthermore, insofar as the referee made several findings of fact regarding
G’s need for medication, this court could not conclude that the improperly
admitted evidence did not factor into the referee’s damages calculation.
4. The trial court improperly vacated the injunction requiring that the branch
give G the option of returning to the courthouse at which she was
originally stationed, as none of the concerns expressed by that court
was sufficient to warrant vacating the injunction as a matter of law,
April 26, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 35