§ 46a-58
- Citation
- § 46a-58
- Parent Document
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2022-04-26
Other Sections in This Document (128)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
Full Text
2,601 chars29, 2014. The precise ruling is unclear. The record con-
tains an e-mail to the parties on that date from Assistant
Attorney General Ann E. Lynch, who presumably was
serving as counsel to the branch. The e-mail states that
‘‘[t]his is to confirm that [the] [r]eferee . . . ordered
[the] complainant to provide [the branch’s] counsel
. . . with a complete copy of . . . Coyle’s file no later
than October 15, 2014. In the alternative, on or before
October 7, 2014, [the complainant] is to provide [the
branch’s] counsel with a release authorizing [the branch’s]
counsel to obtain a complete copy of . . . Coyle’s file.’’
In its subsequent briefing to the commission, however,
the branch repeatedly characterized the referee’s Sep-
tember 29 oral ruling differently. In one motion, for
instance, the branch states: ‘‘On September 29, 2014,
during the prehearing conference, [the] [r]eferee . . .
ruled that, if the complainant intended on pursuing
anything other than garden-variety emotional dis-
tress, she needed to provide copies of her psychological
or mental health records.’’ (Emphasis added.) The
branch thus appears to acknowledge that the referee
did not unconditionally order the complainant to dis-
close her private medical records but, instead, ruled
that she would need to do so if she wished to recover
anything more than garden-variety emotional distress
damages.26
In any event, during the two years that passed between
the referee’s September, 2014 ruling and the November,
2016 hearing, the complainant made various attempts
to accommodate the branch’s discovery request while
preserving her medical privacy. After obtaining an
extension of time within which to produce the requested
26
In some instances, but not others, the branch characterized the referee’s
order as precluding not only medical testimony but also any testimony by
the complainant’s husband as to her emotional state. Our review of the
record did not disclose any independent verification of this contention, and
the referee did, in fact, allow the complainant’s husband to testify at trial
regarding her emotional distress.
Page 70 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL April 26, 2022