§ 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
2,408 charsbranch had an adequate opportunity for cross-examina-
tion without the records. Accordingly, the complainant
was permitted to testify that she felt ‘‘dirty,’’ victimized,
embarrassed, ashamed, and fearful as a result of Mar-
co’s conduct and the branch’s inadequate response. She
testified that, following the incidents, she had ceased
to be a happy person; she suffered anxiety and ner-
vousness, and would wake in the night crying. The
complainant was visibly shaking and in tears during
this testimony. Her testimony as to the emotional dis-
tress that she suffered during and following the Marco
incidents was corroborated by the testimony of several
other nonmedical witnesses, including her husband,
John Gilbert, each of whom the referee found to be
credible.
Second, the branch contended that some of the testi-
mony by the complainant and her lay witnesses crossed
the threshold from garden-variety to treatment related
emotional distress damages because the testimony
occasionally alluded to or directly referenced the com-
plainant’s use of mental health counselling and pharma-
ceuticals to treat her emotional distress. The referee’s
response to this second category of objections was not
a model of clarity or consistency. When the branch
objected to the complainant’s testimony that her physi-
cian had prescribed daily Lexapro for depression and
anxiety, the referee allowed her to testify as to the
medication but not the amount. When the branch
objected to testimony that the complainant saw Gurn
for therapy, the referee allowed the complainant and
her husband to testify that she went to Gurn but not
about the ‘‘particulars’’ as to what occurred at the thera-
pist’s office. When the branch objected to testimony
that the complainant was taking Tylenol PM and pre-
scription sleep aids, the referee responded: ‘‘We really
can’t get into too much medical information, because
we’re not doing this based on her treatment. . . .
April 26, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 73