REVC3-25-08

DOCKET NO. UWY-CV-07-5007185-S ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, Executor of the Estate of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, Individually v. DANBURY HOSPITAL and BEATRIZ CUELLO : : : : : SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY *COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET* AT WATERBURY MARCH 25, 2008 REVISED COMPLAINT COUNT ONE: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1. On or about October 11, 2007, ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was appointed by the Probate Court in Southbury, Connecticut, as Executor of the Estate of her deceased husband, the plaintiff‟s decedent, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN; the latter having died on August 8, 2007. appointment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL was a specially A copy of said chartered corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, operating a hospital in Danbury, Connecticut, and providing pathology laboratory services and other health care services to the general public and more specifically to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 3. At all times mentioned herein, the co-defendant BEATRIZ CUELLO, a Board Certified Pathologist, was a servant, agent, apparent agent and/or employee, of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 1 4. At all times mentioned herein, Frank Braza, a Board Certified Pathologist, was a servant, agent, apparent agent and/or employee, of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 5. Commencing on or about August 16, 1999, until on or about March 1, 2006, the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, its servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees, (herein referred to collectively as “DANBURY HOSPITAL” or the “defendant”), undertook the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and/or supervision of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. Said care, etc. included the reading, interpreting and reporting of/on tissue specimens taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 6. On or about August 19, 1999, the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL performed a tissue analysis of a specimen of esophagus taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN on or about August 16, 1999, (Case # S-99-09786), and issued a surgical pathology report related to that analysis. The diagnosis stated in said report was “ESOPHAGUS, BIOPSY: REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS.” DR. CUELLO signed that report. 7. In or about December 21, 2005, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN first discovered that he was suffering from esophageal cancer. 8. On or about December 30, 2005, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN first discovered that the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL was negligent in one or more of the ways set forth below and the causal relationship between said negligence and the subsequent lack of treatment and progression of his cancer. 2 9. On or about December 30, 2005, Dr. Braza hand wrote at the bottom of the August, 1999, surgical pathology report, (Case # S-99-09786): “The slides were reviewed on December 30, 2005. Neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands are present in one of the two fragments. An amended report will be issued.” Dr. Braza signed his notation. 10. things: a. On or about December 29, 2005, he reviewed the pathology slides (Case # S-9909786) and discovered “highly atypical/neoplastic glands that were not mentioned in the” original report signed by Dr. Cuello; b. “[Braza] showed the slides to Dr. Sieber who agreed with his interpretation”; c. “Dr. Kranwinkel was notified and he also reviewed the slides”; d. “The slides were reviewed at Sloan Kettering and a report was issued on Jan[uary] 11, 2006”; e. “The reading from the outside pathologist was: „Squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia. Cannot exclude invasive adenocarcinoma. Changes of reflux esophagitis also noted‟”; f. “In agreement with the Sloan Kettering pathology review we conclude that the atypical glandular changes should have been included in the original report.” 11. On or about March 1, 2006, the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL reviewed the earlier On or about January 23, 2006, Dr. Braza, wrote a report that indicated, among other August, 1999, specimen of esophagus taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, (Case # S-99-09786), and issued an Amended Surgical Pathology Report related to that review. The Amended Diagnosis stated in said report was “ESOPHAGUS, BIOPSY: FRAGMENTS OF GASTROESOPHAGEAL MUCOSA 3 WITH HIGH GRADE GLANDULAR DYSPLASIA. REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS. NO EVIDENCE OF BARRETT‟S ESOPHAGUS.” DR. CUELLO signed that amended report. 12. While under the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and/or supervision of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries, as hereinafter set forth. 13. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL on or about August, 1999, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “INITIAL WRONGS”) in that it: a. failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if it had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; f. failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; 4 g. failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. k. failed to recognize that it had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which it had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when it had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that it may have improperly advised him; o. failed to provide STANLEY SAPERSTEIN with a physician who had the requisite knowledge, skill, training and experience to properly perform a complete and accurate reading, interpretation and reporting of his pathology in August, 1999. 14. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: 5 a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 15. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 16. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. 6 COUNT TWO: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of COUNT ONE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 15 of this COUNT TWO. 16. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 17. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. COUNT THREE: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT ONE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT THREE. 14. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, which continued from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “CONTINUING DUTIES AND CONTINUING BREACHES”) as set forth below. Said CONTINUING DUTIES related to one or more of the INITIAL WRONG(S) as set forth above. The defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL committed continuing negligence in that it: 7 a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if it had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. 8 k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to recognize that it had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which it had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when it had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that it may have improperly advised him. 15. As a result of the carelessness and negligence (both INITIAL and CONTINUING) of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; 9 h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 16. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 17. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT FOUR: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-16. Paragraphs 1 through 16 of COUNT THREE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 16 of this COUNT FOUR. 17. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 18. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. 10 COUNT FIVE: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT ONE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT FIVE. 14. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, there existed a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP between STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL giving rise to a CONTINUING DUTY on the defendant‟s part that remained in existence after commission of one or more of the INITIAL WRONGS (as described above) related thereto. The basis for said special relationship included, among other things, the following: a. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was an attending physician, board certified in Internal Medicine and Nephrology, with privileges at DANBURY HOSPITAL for approximately 35 years; b. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN introduced peritoneal dialysis to DANBURY HOSPITAL in approximately the late 1960‟s; c. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was the former Chief of DANBURY HOSPITAL‟S Chronic Dialysis Unit; d. in approximately 2001, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN (together with his wife, ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN) established the Stanley Saperstein, M.D. and Eleanor L. Saperstein Diabetes Mellitus Complications Educational Endowment at DANBURY HOSPITAL; e. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was lead to believe that the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL would properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on his esophageal biopsy taken in August, 1999; f. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was a patient of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 11 15. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, which continued from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “CONTINUING DUTIES AND CONTINUING BREACHES”) in that it: a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if it had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; 12 h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to recognize that it had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which it had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when it had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that it may have improperly advised him. 16. As a result of the carelessness and negligence (both INITIAL and CONTINUING) of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; 13 c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 17. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 18. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT SIX: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-17. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT FIVE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 17 of this COUNT SIX. 14 18. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 19. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. COUNT SEVEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT ONE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT SEVEN. 14. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL engaged in the CONTINUOUS TREATMENT of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 15. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had an identified medical condition, i.e. an esophageal abnormality, including cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma and/or Barrett‟s changes, that required ongoing treatment or monitoring. 16. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN reasonably could have anticipated that the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL would have provided ongoing treatment or monitoring of that medical condition after its allegedly negligent conduct described above. Said ongoing treatment or monitoring includes, but is not limited to the following: 15 a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely and accurately analyzing/examining the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely reading, interpreting and/or reporting on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely reporting on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if it had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, diagnosing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, notifying STANLEY SAPERSTEIN of the correct diagnosis; f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, recognizing that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, consulting with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, discussing the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, informing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, warning of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. 16 k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, recognizing that it had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, correcting its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, correcting its misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which it had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, warning and/or informing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when it had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that it may have improperly advised him. 17. In or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN terminated treatment with the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 18. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; 17 g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 19. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 20. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT EIGHT: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DANBURY HOSPITAL 1-19. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of COUNT SEVEN are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 19 of this COUNT EIGHT. 20. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 18 21. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. COUNT NINE: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. BEATRIZ CUELLO 1. On or about October 11, 2007, ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was appointed by the Probate Court in Southbury, Connecticut, as Executor of the Estate of her deceased husband, the plaintiff‟s decedent, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN; the latter having died on August 8, 2007. appointment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant BEATRIZ CUELLO held herself out to the A copy of said general public as a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of Connecticut, specializing in pathology and practicing in Danbury, Connecticut 3. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant DR. CUELLO, was a servant, agent, apparent agent and/or employee, of the co-defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 4. At all times mentioned herein, Frank Braza, a Board Certified Pathologist, was a servant, agent, apparent agent and/or employee, of the co-defendant DANBURY HOSPITAL. 5. Commencing on or about August 16, 1999, until on or about March 1, 2006, the defendant DR. CUELLO, her servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees, (herein referred to collectively as “DR. CUELLO” or the “defendant”), undertook the care, treatment, monitoring, 19 diagnosing and/or supervision of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. Said care, etc. included the reading, interpreting and reporting of/on tissue specimens taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 6. On or about August 19, 1999, the defendant DR. CUELLO performed a tissue analysis of a specimen of esophagus taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN on or about August 16, 1999, (Case # S-99-09786), and issued a surgical pathology report related to that analysis. The diagnosis stated in said report was “ESOPHAGUS, BIOPSY: REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS.” DR. CUELLO signed that report. 7. In or about December 21, 2005, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN first discovered that he was suffering from esophageal cancer. 8. On or about December 30, 2005, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN first discovered that the defendant DR. CUELLO was negligent in one or more of the ways set forth below and the causal relationship between said negligence and the subsequent lack of treatment and progression of his cancer. 9. On or about December 30, 2005, Dr. Braza hand wrote at the bottom of the August, 1999, surgical pathology report, (Case # S-99-09786): “The slides were reviewed on December 30, 2005. Neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands are present in one of the two fragments. An amended report will be issued.” Dr. Braza signed his notation. 10. things: On or about January 23, 2006, Dr. Braza, wrote a report that indicated, among other 20 a. On or about December 29, 2005, he reviewed the pathology slides (Case # S-9909786) and discovered “highly atypical/neoplastic glands that were not mentioned in the” original report signed by Dr. Cuello; b. “[Braza] showed the slides to Dr. Sieber who agreed with his interpretation”; c. “Dr. Kranwinkel was notified and he also reviewed the slides”; d. “The slides were reviewed at Sloan Kettering and a report was issued on Jan[uary] 11, 2006”; e. “The reading from the outside pathologist was: „Squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia. Cannot exclude invasive adenocarcinoma. Changes of reflux esophagitis also noted”; f. “In agreement with the Sloan Kettering pathology review we conclude that the atypical glandular changes should have been included in the original report.” 11. On or about March 1, 2006, the defendant DR. CUELLO reviewed the earlier August, 1999, specimen of esophagus taken from STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, (Case # S-99-09786), and issued an Amended Surgical Pathology Report related to that review. The Amended Diagnosis stated in said report was “ESOPHAGUS, BIOPSY: FRAGMENTS OF GASTROESOPHAGEAL MUCOSA WITH HIGH GRADE GLANDULAR DYSPLASIA. REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS. NO EVIDENCE OF BARRETT‟S ESOPHAGUS.” DR. CUELLO signed that amended report. 12. While under the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and/or supervision of the defendant DR. CUELLO, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries, as hereinafter set forth. 21 13. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DR. CUELLO on or about August, 1999, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “INITIAL WRONGS”) in that she: a. failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if she had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; f. failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; 22 j. failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; k. failed to recognize that she had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which she had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when she had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that she may have improperly advised him. 14. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant DR. CUELLO, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; 23 h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 15. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 16. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT TEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DR. CUELLO 1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of COUNT NINE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 15 of this COUNT TEN. 16. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 17. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. 24 COUNT ELEVEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DR. CUELLO 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT NINE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT ELEVEN. 14. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DR. CUELLO, which continued from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “CONTINUING DUTIES AND CONTINUING BREACHES”) as set forth below. Said CONTINUING DUTIES related to one or more of the INITIAL WRONG(S) as set forth above. The defendant DR. CUELLO committed continuing negligence in that she: a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if she had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; 25 f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to recognize that she had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which she had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when she had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that she may have improperly advised him. 26 15. As a result of the carelessness and negligence (both INITIAL and CONTINUING) of the defendant DR. CUELLO, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. 16. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 27 17. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT TWELVE: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DR. CUELLO 1-16. Paragraphs 1 through 16 of COUNT ELEVEN are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 16 of this COUNT TWELVE. 17. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 18. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. COUNT THIRTEEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DR. CUELLO 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT NINE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT THIRTEEN. 14. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, there existed a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP between STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and the defendant DR. CUELLO giving rise to a CONTINUING DUTY on the defendant‟s part that remained in existence after commission of one or more of the INITIAL WRONGS (as described above) related thereto. The basis for said special relationship included, among other things, the following: 28 a. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was an attending physician, board certified in Internal Medicine and Nephrology, with privileges at DANBURY HOSPITAL for approximately 35 years; b. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN introduced peritoneal dialysis to DANBURY HOSPITAL in approximately the late 1960‟s; c. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was the former Chief of DANBURY HOSPITAL‟S Chronic Dialysis Unit; d. in approximately 2001, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN (together with his wife, ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN) established the Stanley Saperstein, M.D. and Eleanor L. Saperstein Diabetes Mellitus Complications Educational Endowment at DANBURY HOSPITAL; e. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was lead to believe that the defendant DR. CUELLO would properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on his esophageal biopsy taken in August, 1999; f. 15. STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was a patient of the defendant DR. CUELLO. Said injuries suffered by STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, were caused by the acts or omissions of the defendant DR. CUELLO, which continued from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present (hereinafter referred to as the defendant‟s “CONTINUING DUTIES AND CONTINUING BREACHES”) in that she: a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly perform a complete and accurate analysis/examination of the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely read, interpret and/or report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; 29 c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly and completely report on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if she had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, misdiagnosed STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to notify of the correct diagnosis; f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to properly recognize that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to consult with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to discuss the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to recognize that she had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; 30 m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to correct her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which she had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, failed to warn and/or correctly inform STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, when she had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that she may have improperly advised him. 16. As a result of the carelessness and negligence (both INITIAL and CONTINUING) of the defendant DR. CUELLO, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; 31 l. 17. death. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 18. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT FOURTEEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DR. CUELLO 1-17. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT THIRTEEN are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 17 of this COUNT FOURTEEN. 18. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 19. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. COUNT FIFTEEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SAPERSTEIN v. DR. CUELLO 1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of COUNT NINE are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 13 of this COUNT FIFTEEN. 32 14. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, the defendant DR. CUELLO engaged in the CONTINUOUS TREATMENT of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 15. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had an identified medical condition, i.e. an esophageal abnormality, including cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma and/or Barrett‟s changes, that required ongoing treatment or monitoring. 16. From August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN reasonably could have anticipated that the defendant DR. CUELLO would have provided ongoing treatment or monitoring of that medical condition after her allegedly negligent conduct described above. Said ongoing treatment or monitoring includes, but is not limited to the following: a. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely and accurately analyzing/examining the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; b. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely reading, interpreting and/or reporting on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999; c. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, completely reporting on the esophageal specimen taken during biopsy in August, 1999, if she had actual concerns and/or reason to have concerns that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN had any condition other than reflux esophagitis; d. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, diagnosing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN‟S condition; 33 e. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, notifying STANLEY SAPERSTEIN of the correct diagnosis; f. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, recognizing that STANLEY SAPERSTEIN was at risk for cancer, highly atypical/neoplastic (adenocarcinoma) glands, high grade glandular dysplasia, squamocolumnar junctional mucosa with the glandular component showing at least high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, Barrett‟s changes and/or serious injury; g. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, consulting with other pathologists regarding the interpretation of the August, 1999, pathology slides; h. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, discussing the diagnosis of the August, 1999, pathology slides with the referring physician; i. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, informing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN that a complete and/or accurate analysis/examination of the pathology slides had not been conducted in August, 1999; from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, warning of the potential adverse side effects of misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; j. k. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, recognizing that she had misread, misinterpreted and/or misreported the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; l. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, correcting her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999; m. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, correcting her misreading, misinterpretation and/or misreporting of the analysis/examination of the pathology slides that was conducted in August, 1999, which she had actually questioned and/or reason to question initially; n. from August, 1999, to in or about March, 2006, warning and/or informing STANLEY SAPERSTEIN regarding the analysis/examination of the pathology slides 34 that was conducted in August, 1999, when she had actual knowledge and/or reason to know that she may have improperly advised him. 17. In or about March, 2006, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN terminated treatment with the defendant DR. CUELLO. 18. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant DR. CUELLO, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN suffered the following serious, severe, painful and permanent injuries: a. deprivation of surveillance and frequent monitoring with serial endoscopies; b. deprivation of treatment, including esophageal resection; c. deprivation of and/or loss of the chance for a cure; d. high grade dysplasia changed into metastatic carcinoma; e. late stage esophageal cancer; f. difficulty swallowing; g. chemotherapy; h. shortened life span; i. j. pain and suffering; psychological, physiological and neurological sequelae; k. antemortem pain and suffering; l. death. 35 19. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life‟s activities and his earning capacity has been permanently destroyed. 20. As a further result of his injuries, STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and/or his Estate have incurred expenses for medical, hospital and nursing care and treatment, as well as funeral expenses, all to their financial loss. COUNT SIXTEEN: ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. DR. CUELLO 1-19. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of COUNT FIFTEEN are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1 through 19 of this COUNT SIXTEEN. 20. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN was the wife of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN. 21. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences to STANLEY SAPERSTEIN, the plaintiff ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN has been deprived of the companionship and society of her husband, all to her damage. 36 WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFFS, ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, Executor of the Estate of STANLEY SAPERSTEIN and ELEANOR SAPERSTEIN, Individually, HEREBY CLAIM MONETARY DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND & 00/100 DOLLARS ($15,000.00) AND THIS MATTER IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. 37 THE PLAINTIFFS, BY CAREY B. REILLY KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone No. (203) 336-4421 Fax #203-368-3244 Juris No. 32250 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been faxed and mailed, postage prepaid, this date to counsel of record as follows: R. Neil Danaher, Esq. Atty. Karen M. Noble Danaher, Lagnese & Neal, P.C. 21 Oak Street, #700 Hartford, CT 06106 ____________________________________ CAREY B. REILLY 38