Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************

Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.
SANDHYA DESMOND v. YALE-NEW HAVEN
HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL.
(AC 48749)
Alvord, Moll and Palmer, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment of dismissal rendered
following its grant of the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s amended
complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff claimed that the court incorrectly
concluded that the exclusivity provision (§ 31-284 (a)) of the Workers'
Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s claims, including her claim for
statutory theft (§ 31-290c). Held:
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, as the trial court properly
resolved the issues raised in this appeal, and this court adopted the trial
court's thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper
statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.
Argued April 14—officially released May 26, 2026
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for statutory theft, and for
other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of New Haven and transferred to the judicial
district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket, where
the court, Wilson, J., granted the defendants’ motion
to strike the amended complaint; thereafter, the court,
Klau, J., rendered a judgment of dismissal, from which
the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Eric Desmond, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Phyllis M. Pari, for the appellees (defendants).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Sandhya Desmond,
appeals from the trial court’s grant of the motion for
judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44
filed by the defendants, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.,
Letizia Ambrose & Falls, P.C., and Neil Ambrose, follow-
ing the court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to strike
the plaintiff’s amended complaint in its entirety. On
appeal, the plaintiff’s principal claim is that, in striking

Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc.
the amended complaint, the court incorrectly concluded
that the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Com-
pensation Act, General Statutes § 31-284 (a), bars the
plaintiff’s claims of statutory theft pursuant to General
Statutes § 31-290c.
Having examined the record and considered the briefs
and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judg-
ment of the trial court should be affirmed. In grant-
ing the defendants’ motion to strike, the court issued
a thorough and well reasoned memorandum of deci-
sion, which contains a proper statement of the relevant
facts and the applicable law on the issues. We therefore
adopt the decision as our own. See Desmond v. Yale-New
Haven Hospital, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district
of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket, Docket No.
X06-CV-24-6075921-S (January 16, 2025) (reprinted at
239 Conn. App. 195, ___ A.3d ___). “It would serve no
useful purpose for [this court] to repeat the discussion
therein contained.” Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins.
Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).
The judgment is affirmed.