§ 46a-58

Citation: § 46a-58
Parent Document: Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-04-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6462677/connecticut-judicial-branch-v-gilbert/ ↗

Full Text

3,125 chars

Consistent with federal law, we conclude that the
state has not waived its sovereign immunity with
respect to prejudgment and postjudgment interest pay-
able under § 46a-86 (a), either expressly or by necessary
implication. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of
the trial court in that regard and conclude that the
commission’s award of interest must be vacated.
III
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES
Having held in part I of this opinion that the commis-
sion is authorized to award emotional distress damages
in this case, we now must address the first issue in the
commission’s cross appeal, namely, whether the trial
court correctly concluded that the complainant should
have been precluded from recovering any emotional
distress damages as a sanction for her refusal to pro-
duce her full medical and psychotherapy records during
discovery.24 We disagree with the trial court that the
referee was required to disallow any evidence of ‘‘gar-
den-variety’’ emotional distress.25 We do agree with the
thus, the no-interest rule, were not at issue; see, e.g., Gares v. Willingboro,
90 F.3d 720 (3d Cir. 1996); Paterson v. State, 128 Idaho 494, 915 P.2d 724
(1996); Bain v. Springfield, 424 Mass. 758, 678 N.E.2d 155 (1997); or insofar
as the issue of sovereign immunity was not before the court. See, e.g., Clarke
v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146 (2d Cir. 1992).
24
In addition to the substantive challenges discussed hereinafter, the com-
mission raises other challenges to the trial court’s decision to vacate the
emotional distress damages award, such as that the branch’s claim was
inadequately briefed before the trial court and should have been deemed
abandoned and that the information sought by the branch was privileged.
We have reviewed those claims and find them unavailing.
25
We note that the referee relied on a recognized distinction in carving
out a discrete subset of garden-variety emotional distress that can be proven
solely on the basis of the complainant’s own and other lay testimony, without
the need for expert medical evidence. In Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn.
679, 41 A.3d 1013 (2012), we recognized that such claims are cognizable
under Connecticut law. See id., 707–708. Although no one involved in this
litigation has offered a precise definition of the phrase ‘‘garden-variety emo-
tional distress,’’ the term appears to have a commonly understood meaning,
and, on appeal, the parties have not challenged the referee’s use of the term.
For purposes of this case, we will use the phrase as the referee appeared
Page 68 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text