throbber
DOCKET NO.: MI\/IX—CV~15—60‘l4578—S
`
`I
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`MARILYN DELINE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
`ESTATE OF DENISE AUGERI
`:
`
`JD. OF MIDDLETOWN
`
`VS.
`
`GREYSTONE REST. HOME, INC. D/B/A
`GREYSTONE RETIREMENT HOME;
`CRYSTAL PLAYER; LUEL IRENE SWANSON;
`LUCILLE IRENE SWANSON; AND
`ASHTIN ZEOLI
`
`:
`
`:
`
`AT IVIIDDLETOWN
`
`JULY 28, 2016
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq., the defendants, Greystone Rest
`
`Home,
`
`Inc. d/bla Greystone Retirement Home (hereinafter "Greystone”), Crystal
`
`Player, Luel Irene Swanson, Lucille Irene Swanson, and Ashtin Zecli, respectfully
`
`move this Court for the entry of summary judgment in their favor with respect to the
`
`plaintiff’s, Marilyn Deline’s, Administrator of the Estate of Denise Augeri, Second
`
`Amended Complaint dated January 27, 2016. The plaintiff alleges,
`
`in part,
`
`that
`
`Greystone, Luel Swanson, and Cristal Player were negligent in that they failed to
`
`assess adequately the level of risk the decedent, Denise Augeri, was in; failed to
`
`take reasonable steps to protect her life; and faiied to recognize the severity of the
`
`decedent’s suicidal
`
`ideations. The plaintiff further alleges that Greystone, Lucille
`
`Swanson, RN, and Ashtin Zeoli, RN, deviated below the applicable standard of care
`
`

`
`of a registered nurse andlor below the standard of care of a facility providing nursing
`
`care.
`
`The defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that Greystone, as
`
`a residentiai care home, had no duty to provide nursing care under Conn. Gen. Stat.
`
`§ 19a—490 and § ‘l9—13—D6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
`
`Further, Greystone is not licensed by the State as a “health care provider" under
`
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52—184b. As more particularly set
`
`forth in the attached
`
`Memorandum of Law, Greystone fostered personal independence in a home-like
`
`environment and residents were allowed to come and go as they pleased. The basic
`
`services provided by Greystone did not create a duty to evaluate residents in order
`
`to determine whether they were a suicide risk. Therefore, the defendants are entitied
`
`to summary judgment as a matter of law.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`GREYSTONE REST HOME, INC.
`DIB/All GREYSTONE RETIREMENT
`_ HOME; CRYSTAL PLAYER; LUEL lRENE
`SWANSON; LUCILLE IRENE SWANSON;
`AND ASHTIN ZEOLI
`
`Isl 407831
`By:
`James F. Sullivan, Esq.
`Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald
`237 Buckingham Street
`
`

`
`Hartford, CT 06106
`Juris No.: 028160
`
`Telephone: 860-525-3101
`Fax: 860-247-4201
`
`CERTEFECATIQN
`
`l hereby certify that this pleading complies with the requirements of Practice
`Book § 4-? and a copy of the foregoing was mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or
`electronically delivered pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 to all counsel and pro se
`parties of record who have given written consent for electronic detivery, as follows
`on this 28th day of July, 2016.
`
`Jose M. Rojas, Esq.
`Rojas Law Firm
`40 Russ Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06106
`
`Paul Levin, Esq.
`Law Offices of Paul Levin
`40 Russ Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06106
`
`Nicole A. Demers, Esq.
`AG-Civil Rights/Torts
`55 Elm Street, PO. Box 120
`Hartford, CT 06141
`
`407831
`Isl
`By:
`James F. Sullivan
`
`Commissioner of Superior Court
`
`

`
`DOCKET NO. MMX-CV-15—6014578-S
`
`: SUPERIOR COURT
`
`MARELYN DELINE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE :
`ESTATE OF DENISE AUGERI
`
`J. D. OF MIDDLETOWN
`
`VS.
`
`GREYSTONE REST HOME, INC. DIBIAI
`GREYSTONE RETIREMENT HOME;
`CRYSTAL
`PLAYER; LUEL IRENE SWANSON; LUCILLE
`IRENE SWANSON; AND ASHTEN ZEOLI
`
`: AT MIDDLETOWN
`
`:
`
`July 28, 2016
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq., the defendants, Greystone Rest
`
`Home,
`
`inc. d/bla Greystone Retirement Home (hereinafter “Greystone”), Crystal
`
`Player, Luel Irene Swanson, Lucille Irene Swanson, and Ashtin Zeoli, respectfully
`
`move this Court for the entry of summary judgment in their favor with respect to the
`
`plaintiff’s, Marilyn Deline, Administrator of the Estate of Denise Augeri, Second
`
`Amended Complaint dated January 27, 2016. The plaintiffs Complaint asserts
`
`claims of negligence and medical malpractice. The defendants move for summary
`
`judgment on the basis that Greystone, as a residential care home, had no duty to
`
`

`
`provide nursing care under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a—490 and § 19-13-D6 of the
`
`Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Further, Greystone is not licensed by
`
`the State as a “health care provider" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-f84b. Greystone
`
`fostered personal independence in a home—like environment and residents were
`
`allowed to come and go as they pleased. The basic services provided by Greystone
`
`did not create a duty to evaluate residents in order to determine whether they were a
`
`suicide risk. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter
`
`of law.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND:
`
`Greystone is licensed by the State of Connecticut as a residential care home
`
`located in Portland, Connecticut. Lucille l. Swanson Affidavit at 11 6. (“L. Swanson
`
`Aft. at 11 Ni") (attached as Exhibit "A”). Greystone offers housing and care for
`
`residents who require more than congregate housing, but who, by no means, have a
`
`current need for nursing/convalescent home care. |_d_. at 11 7. The facility sometimes
`
`takes in residents who have severe physical, emotional, psychological, andlor
`
`psychiatric disorders. Q at 1[ 8. Even so, Greystone is not a medical facility. lg_. at 1]
`
`9. The facility‘s regulations foster personal independence on the part of the residents
`
`in a home-like environment. 1; at
`
`11 10. To that end, Greystone provides food,
`
`

`
`shelter,
`
`laundry and other services, such as recreational services, which do not
`
`require the training or skills of a licensed nurse. lg, at 11 11. Greystone voluntarily
`
`employed a registered nurse so that Greystone and family members of the residents
`
`would have peace of mind. Ld, at 11 12. The nurse worked only part—time from 8:00
`
`a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and provided only basic care, which inciuded checking weight,
`
`blood sugars, temperature, and blood pressure. lcl_. at 11 13. These basic services
`
`could be refused by residents. 1; at 11 14. Additional services provided included
`
`assistance with bathing and help with dressing. list; at 1115.
`
`On or about January 2012, Greystone had a resident commit suicide by
`
`entering a nearby river. L. Swanson Aff. at 11 16. Because of this previous incident,
`
`Greystone scrupulously screened potential residents during the application process
`
`by inquiring about past attempts of suicide and suicidal ideations. Q at 1117. Before
`
`becoming a resident, the decedent, Denise Augeri, unden/vent an initial
`
`interview
`
`and a pre—residency screening process. Q at 11 18. During the initial interview, the
`
`decedent’s mental health care worker and apportionment defendant, Mary Carter,
`
`failed to disclose to Greystone that the decedent had suicidal ideations even though
`
`Ms. Carter knew that the decedent had attempted on two previous occasions to
`
`jump off the Arrigoni Bridge in It/liddletown, Connecticut. L. Swanson Aff. at 11 19.
`
`If
`
`

`
`the decedent or Ms. Carter had mentioned anything regarding suicide attempts or
`
`suicidal ideations, Greystone would not have allowed Ms. Augeri to five in the home.
`
`ILL at 1'1’ 20.
`
`On September 10, 2013, Ms. Augeri, became a resident at Greystone.
`
`;l,_._
`
`Swanson Aff. at {I 21. During her stay, the decedent commented that she really liked
`
`Greystone and was happy at the home. ld_. at 1} 22. On December 10, 2013, Ashtin
`
`Zeoli, RN, received a telephone call from a doctor’s office and was told that the
`
`decedent was upset because her ride to the doctor’s office was cancelled due to the
`
`weather. Ashtin Zeoli Affidavit at ‘H 6 ("A. Zeoli Aff. at 1]
`
`") (attached as Exhibit
`
`"B”). Ms. Augeri also commented that she was “done and wanted to die and jump off
`
`the bridge.” l__c1._ at ‘H 7. Ms. Zeoli notified Middlesex Hospital, who, in turn, referred
`
`Ms. Augeri to is Mobile Crisis Unit. Lt; at ‘H 8. Mobile Crisis then spoke with the Ms.
`
`Augeri and subsequently told Ms. Zeoli that Ms. Augeri was not a threat to herself.
`
`l_cL at Ti 9. Ms. Augeri was also given a mobile crisis telephone number to call. Id_. at 1[
`
`10. The decedent was cleared by Middlesex Hospital and its Mobile Crisis Unit to
`
`live and remain at Greystone with its requisite level of care. L. Swanson Aff. at 1123.
`
`Further, Greystone was assured that the decedent was not a suicide risk and that
`
`the facility would not have to adopt any additional procedures to prevent a suicide.
`
`

`
`Q at Ti 24.
`
`Greystone maintained sign-in and sign—out sheets. The facility, however, as a
`
`residential care home, could not and did not restrict residents from leaving. ;
`
`Swanson Afi. at 11 25. On February 19, 2014, the decedent signed out of Greystone
`
`in good spirits at approximately 8:15 a.m. in order to go to a doctor’s appointment in
`
`New Haven. Q at 1126. The decedent left in a taxi cab. id at ‘H27. She had the taxi
`
`however drop her off at a Dunkin Donuts in Portland. lg. Ms. Augeri then walked to
`
`the Middletown side of the Arrigoni Bridge and jumped off.
`
`ld_. at ‘ii 28. After Ms.
`
`Augeri’s death, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Middletown
`
`Police Department conducted a thorough investigation and cleared Greystone of any
`
`responsibility for her death. lcl_. at 1|’ 29.
`
`In Count One of the plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint,
`
`the plaintiff
`
`alleges, in part, that Greystone, Luel Swanson, and Cristal Player were negligent in
`
`that they failed to assess adequately the level of risk the decedent, Denise Augeri,
`
`was in; failed to take reasonable steps to protect her life; and failed to recognize the
`
`severity of the decedent’s suicidal ideations.
`
`In Count ?|'wo, the plaintiff alieges,
`
`in
`
`part, that Greystone, Lucille Swanson, RN, and Ashtin Zeoli, RN, deviated below the
`
`applicabie standard of care of a registered nurse andlor below the standard of care
`
`

`
`of a faciiity providing nursing care.
`
`The defendants maintain that Greystone, as a residential care home, had no
`
`duty to provide nursing care under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a—490 and § 19-13-D6 of
`
`the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Further, Greystone is not licensed
`
`by the State as a “health care provider" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184-b. The
`
`basic services provided by Greystone did not create a duty to evaluate residents in
`
`order to determine whether they were a suicide risk.
`
`sir.
`
`- AFtGUiViENT:-
`
`A.
`
`Standard for Summary Judgment:
`
`Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits
`
`and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
`
`fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Practice
`
`Book§ 17-49. “In deciding a motion for summaryjudgment, the trial court must view
`
`the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." DiPietro v.
`
`Farmington Sports Arena, LLC., 306 Conn. 107, 116, 49 A.3d 951 (2012). “The party
`
`seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine
`
`issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle
`
`him to a judgment as a matter of law .
`
`.
`
`. and the party opposing such a motion must
`
`

`
`provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of
`
`material fact." 1;;
`
`“A material fact .
`
`.
`
`. [is] a fact whic_h will make a difference in the result of the
`
`case.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. A party may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true
`
`nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Swanson v.
`
`Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 853, 977 A.2d 738 (2009). “When a motion for
`
`summary judgment is supported by affidavits and other documents, an adverse
`
`party, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by [Practice Book § 17-45] must set forth
`
`specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if he does not so
`
`respond, the court is entitled to rely upon the facts stated in the affidavit of the
`
`movant.” Bartha v. Waterbugj House Wrecking Co., 190 Conn. 8, 11-12, 459 A.2d
`
`115 (1983). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of
`
`such a disputed issue. “Mere assertions of fact, whether contained in a complaint or
`
`in a brief, are insufficient to estabiish the existence of a material fact and, therefore,
`
`cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court under Practice Book § [17-
`
`45]." Bartha, 190 Conn. at 12. See also lnwood Condo. Ass'n v. Winer, 49 Conn.
`
`App. 694, 697, 716 A.2d 139 (1998). To successfuliy oppose a motion for summary
`
`judgment, “the nonmovant must recite specific facts in accordance with Practice
`
`10
`
`

`
`Book (1998 Rev.) §§ 17-45 and 17-46... which contradict those stated in the
`
`movant’s affidavits and documents and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. if
`
`he does not so respond, summary judgment shall be entered against him." l_r_i__wg;d
`
`Condo. Ass’n, 49 Conn. App. at 697.
`
`A genuine issue is one that is supported by evidentiary facts or substantial
`
`evidence apart from the pleadings, “from which the material facts alleged in the
`
`pleadings can warrantably be inferred.” Buell Indus. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. lns. Co.
`
`259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002). The evidence is considered substantial
`
`when it is sufficient to "remove the issue from the field of surmise and conjecture.”
`
`Chasse v. Albert, 14? Conn. 680, 683, 166 A.2d 148 (1960). “indeed, the whole
`
`summary judgment procedure would be defeated if, without any showing of
`
`evidence, a case could be forced to trial by a mere assertion that an issue exists."
`
`Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 39, 438 A.2d 415 (1980). See also 12 Havemeyer
`
`Place Co. LLC v. Gordon, 93 Conn. App. 140, 158, 888 A.2d 141 (2006).
`
`B.
`
`The Defendants Are Entitled To Judgment As A Matter Of Law
`Because, As A Residential Care Home, They Had No Duty To
`Provide Nursing Care Or To Evaluate Residents In Order To
`Determine if They Were Suicide Risks
`
`In order for a plaintiff to establish a negligence claim, she must show that the
`
`defendant owed a duty of care to her, that the defendant breached that duty, and
`
`I1
`
`

`
`that there exists a causal connection between the breach and the resulting harm to
`
`the plaintiff. R.K. Contractors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384, 650 A.2d
`
`153 (1994). The existence of a duty is a question of law which can be determined by
`
`the Court, and only if the duty is found to exist does the trier of fact move onto
`
`determine if the defendant violated that duty. lg; See aiso, Zamstein v. Marvasti, 240
`
`Conn. 549, 558, 692 A.2d 781 (1997). “If a court determines, as a matter of law, that
`
`a defendant owes no duty to a plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover in negligence
`
`from the defendant.” RK Constructors, 231 Conn. at 384.
`
`Duty is a iegal conclusion about relationships between individuals, made after
`
`the fact, and is imperative to a negligence cause of action. Murdock v. Croughwell,
`
`268 Conn. 559, 566, 848 A.2d 363 (2004). Thus,
`
`there can be no actionable
`
`negligence unless there exists a cognizable duty of care. Id The test for the
`
`existence of a legal duty of care entails:
`
`(1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the
`defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew
`or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the
`general nature of that suffered was likely to result, and
`(2) a determination, on the basis of a public policy
`analysis, of whether the defendant's responsibility for its
`negligent conduct
`should extend to the particular
`consequences or particular plaintiff in the case. .
`.
`
`12
`
`

`
`lci_. With respect to the public policy analysis, there generaliy is no duty that obligates
`
`one party to aid or protect another party. Id quoting Restatement (Second), Torts §
`
`314 (1965). One exception to this general rule arises when a definite relationship
`
`between the parties is of such a character that public policyjustifies the imposition of
`
`a duty to aid or to protect another. l_gL quoting W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Q (5th
`
`Ed. 1984) § 56, pp. 373-74; and Restatement (Second), Torts §§ 314A, 315. “The
`
`fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for
`
`another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such
`
`action.” See, Restatement (Second), Torts § 314. “The ultimate test of the existence
`
`of a duty to use reasonable care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if
`
`it is not exercised .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`(internal citations and quotation marks omitted) Burns V. Bd.
`
`
`of Educ. of Stamford 228 Conn. 640, 647, A.2d 1
`
`(1994) (overruled on other
`
`grounds).
`
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a—490(c) defines a “residential care home" and
`
`provides:
`
`“Residential care home”, “nursing home" or “rest home"
`means an establishment
`that furnishes,
`in single or
`
`food and shelter to two or more
`multiple facilities,
`persons unrelated to the proprietor and,
`in addition,
`
`13
`
`

`
`provides services that meet a need beyond the basic
`provisions of food, shelter and laundry;
`
`The State of Connecticut has promulgated Regulations of State Agencies
`
`classifying, defining, and establishing requirements for a variety of institutions.
`
`Pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 19-13-D6(17):
`
`"Residential Care Home" means an institution that
`
`is
`
`the
`of
`(c)
`19a-490
`to section
`pursuant
`licensed
`Connecticut General Statutes having facilities and all
`necessary personnel to furnish food,- shelter and laundry
`for two or morepersons unrelated to the proprietor and in
`addition, providing services of a personal nature which do
`not
`reguire the training or skills of a licensed nurse.
`Additional services of a personal nature may include
`assistance with bathing, help with dressing, preparation
`of sP!‘3.Cial diets and supervision over medications which
`are Mseiféadministereol,
`or
`the
`administration
`of
`medications pursuant to subsection 19-13-D6 (m)(2) of
`the Regulations
`of Connecticut
`State Agencies;
`(emphasis added};
`
`Compare a residential care home to a nursing home or a rest home with nursing
`
`supervision as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-521:
`
`y
`
`“Nursing home facility" means any nursing home or any
`rest home with nursing supervision that provides nursing
`supervision under a medical director twenty-four hours
`per day, or any chronic and convalescent nursing home
`that provides
`skilled
`nursing
`care under medical
`
`14
`
`

`
`supervision and direction to carry out nonsurgical
`treatment and dietary procedures for chronic diseases,
`convalescent
`stages,
`acute diseases
`or
`injuries;
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Lastly, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184b defines “health care provider" as "any person,
`
`corporation, facility or institution licensed by this state to provide health care.or
`
`professional services, or an officer, employee or agent thereof acting in the course
`
`and scope of his employment." (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Greystone is licensed as a residential care home pursuant to Conn
`
`Gen. Stat. § 19a~490(c). As such, Greystone furnishes food, shelter, and laundry to
`
`its residents. Greystone also provides recreational services, assistance with bathing,
`
`and help with dressing. As a residential care home, Greystone fostered personal
`
`independence in a home—|ike environment and residents, including Ms. Augeri, were
`
`allowed to come and go as they pleased. Unlike a nursing home or a rest home with
`
`nursing supervision, Greystone is not required to employ a licensed nurse or to
`
`provide nursing supervision under a medical director. Moreover, Greystone is not
`
`licensed by the State to provide healthcare to its residents as defined in § 52—184b.
`
`Although Greystone voluntarily employed a registered nurse, she worked only part-
`
`time and provided only basic care, such as checking weight, blood sugars,
`
`15
`
`

`
`temperature, and blood pressure. Because Greystone is licensed as a residential
`
`care home, not a health care provider,
`
`it had no duty to provide nursing care to its
`
`residents.
`
`Greystone also had no duty to evaluate residents in order to determine if they
`
`were a suicide risk.
`
`In December 2013, when Ms. Zeoli learned that Ms. Augeri
`
`“wanted to die and jump off the bridge,” she notified Mobile Crisis, who ultimately
`
`determined that Ms. Augeri was not a threat to herself. Middlesex Hospital and its
`
`Mobile Crisis Unit then cleared the decedent to live and remain at Greystone with its
`
`requisite level of care. The facility was assured that Ms. Augeri was not a suicide risk
`
`and that Greystone would not have to adopt any additional procedures to prevent a
`
`suicide. An ordinary person in Greystone’s position, knowing what the facility and its
`
`staff knew, i.e. that Ms. Augeri was not a suicide risk, would not anticipate or foresee
`
`that she would then later commit suicide. Even after the December 2013 incident
`
`occurred, Greystone still had no legal duty to determine whether Ms. Augeri was a
`
`threat to herself.
`
`With respect to the existence of a legal duty and the public policy analysis, as
`
`indicated above, there generally is no duty that obligates one party to aid or protect
`
`another party. One exception is when a definite relationship between the parties is of
`
`16
`
`

`
`such a character that public policy justifies the imposition of a duty to aid or to
`
`protect another. Here,
`
`there was no definite relationship between the parties
`
`justifying the imposition of a duty because, again, Greystone, as a residential care
`
`home, fostered personal independence. Although the facility maintained sign-in and
`
`sign-out sheets, residents were allowed to come and go as they pleased, and the
`
`facility couid not and did not prevent residents from leaving. When Ms. Augeri signed
`
`out of the facility on February 19, 2014 to go to a doctor’s appointment, Greystone
`
`did not have a legal duty to prevent her from leaving or to evaluate whether she was
`
`a suicide risk before she left. Because Greystone and its staff did not have a
`
`cognizable duty of care to provide nursing services -or
`
`to determine whether
`
`residents were suicide risks, there can be no actionable negligence. Therefore,
`
`Greystone cannot be liable to the plaintiff's decedent’s estate, and they are entitled
`
`to summaryjudgment as a matter of law.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION:
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the defendants, Greystone Rest Home, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Greystone Retirement Home (hereinafter “Greystone"), Crystal Player, Luel
`
`lrene
`
`Swanson, Lucille Irene Swanson, and Ashtin Zeoli, respectfully request that this
`
`17
`
`

`
`Court grant
`
`their Motion for Summary Judgment as to the plaintiff's second
`
`Amended Compiaint dated January 27, 2016.
`
`DEFENDANTS,
`GREYSTONE REST HOME, INC.
`DIB/Al GREYSTONE RETIREMENT
`
`HOME; CRYSTAL PLAYER; LUEL
`IRENE SWANSON; LUCELLE IRENE
`SWANSON; AND ASHTEN ZEOLI
`
`By:
`
`Isl 407831
`James F. Suliivan, Esq.
`Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald
`23? Buckingham Street
`Hartford, CT 06106 '
`Juris No: 028160
`
`Telephone: 860-525-3101
`Fax: 8602474201
`ifs@hksf|aw.com
`
`18
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that this pleading complies with the requirements of Practice
`Book § 4-? and a copy of the foregoing was mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or
`electronically delivered pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 to all counsel and pro se
`parties of record who have given written consent for electronic delivery, as follows
`on this 23”‘ day of July, 2016.
`
`Jose M. Rojas, Esq.
`Rojas Law Firm
`40 Russ Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06106
`
`Paul Levin, Esq.
`Law Offices of Paul Levin
`
`40 Russ Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06106
`
`Nicole A. Demers, Esq.
`AG-Civil RightslTorts
`55 Elm Stree, P.O. Box 120
`Hartford, CT 06141
`
`Isl
`
`407831
`
`James F. Sullivan
`
`Commissioner of Superior Court
`
`19
`
`

`
`ET A
`%
`”
`%
`
`

`
`DOCKET NO.: IVIMX-C\/'—’I5-80’I4578—S
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`MARILYN DELINE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
`ESTATE OF DENISE AUGERI
`‘.
`
`vs,
`
`I
`
`GREYSTONE REST. HOME, INC. D/B/A
`GREYSTONE RETIREMENT HOME;
`CRYSTAL PLAYER; LUEL IRENE SWANSON;
`LUCILLE IRENE SWANSON; AND
`ASHTIN ZEOLI
`
`:
`
`:
`
`.J.D. OF i\/IIDDLETOWN
`
`AT IVIIDDLETOWN
`
`JUNE 23, 2015
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF LUEL ERENE SWANSON
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`.
`COUNTY OF IVIIDDLESEX :
`
`ss:
`
`Portland, Connecticut
`(Town)
`
`I, Luei Irene Swanson, a defendant in the above-captioned action, being duiy sworn,
`
`do hereby depose and state:
`
`‘I.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to take an oath.
`
`2.
`
`I am a defendant in a lawsuit commenced by I\/iariiyn Deiine, Administrator of the
`
`Estate of Denise Augeri.
`
`3.
`
`Iviariiyn Deiine commenced this lawsuit against the above-captioned defendants
`
`after her daughter. Denise Augeri, jumped off the Arrigoni Bridge in Iviiddietown, Connecticut
`
`and kiiled herseif.
`
`. 4. Prior to the decedent, Ms. Augerfs. death, she was a resident of Greystone Rest
`
`Home, Inc. dlb/a Greystone Retirement Home (hereinafter “Greystone”).
`
`HOWARD, KUHN SPRAGUE 8:. FITZGERALD, LLP -> ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
`237 BUCKINGHAM STREET ° P.O. BOX 261798 0 HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798 - (860) 525-3101 I JURIS NO. 28160
`
`

`
`5.
`
`I am the Administrator of Greystone.
`
`6. Greystone is licensed by the State of Connecticut as a residential care home located
`
`in Portland, Connecticut.
`
`i
`
`I
`
`'
`
`.7‘. Greystone.offers housing and care for residents who require more than congregate
`
`‘nousing, but who. by no means, have a current need for nursing/convalescent home care.
`
`8. Greystone sometimes takes in residents who have severe physical, emotional,
`
`psychological, and/or psychiatric disorders.
`
`9. Greystone is not a medical facility.
`
`10. Greystone’s regulations foster personal independence in a home—like environment.
`
`11. Greystone provides food, shelter, laundry, and other services, such as recreational
`
`services, which do not require the training or skills of a licensed nurse.
`
`' ’12.
`
`At the time of the Ms. Augeri’s death, Greystone voluntarily employed a
`
`registered nurse so that Greystone and family members of the residents would have piece of
`
`mind.
`
`13. H: The nurse. worked oniy parttime from 8:00 am. to 12:00 p.m. and provided only
`
`basic care, which included checking weight, blood sugars, temperature, and blood pressure.
`
`14.
`
`These basic services could be refused by residents.
`
`15.a/Additional services provided included assistance with bathing and help with
`
`1*.)
`
`HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP « ATTORNEYS—AT-LAW
`237 BUCI-(!NGHA|\fi STREET = P.O. BOX 261798 ° HARTFORD, CT 08126-1798 - (860) 5253101 ° JURKS ND, 28160
`
`

`
`dressing.
`
`16. On or about_January 2012, Greystone had a resident commit suicide by entering
`
`a nearby river.
`
`1?. Because ofthe 2012 incident, Greystone scrupulously screened potential residents
`during the application process by inquiring about past attempts of suicide and suicidal
`
`ideatioiss.
`
`18. Before becoming a resident, the decedent; Ms. Augeri, underwent an initial
`
`interview and a pre—residency screening process.
`
`19. During the initiai interview,‘ Ms. Augeri’s mental health care worker, Mary Carter,
`
`failed to disclose to Greystone that the decedent had suicidal ideations even though Ms.
`
`Carter knewthat Ms. Augeri had attempted on two previous occasions to jump off the Arrigoni
`
`Bridge in Middletown, Connecticut.
`
`20. If the decedent, Ms. Carter, the decendents physician, Dr. Ryan'Boutin, and her
`
`psychiatrist, Dr. Nikolai Lieders had mentioned anything regarding suicide attempts or suicidal
`
`ideations, Greystone would not have allowed i\/ls. Augeri to live at the home.
`21. On September 10, 2013, Ms. Augeri became a resident at Greystone.
`
`22. During l\/‘ls. Augerts stay, she commented that she really liked Greystone and was
`
`happy at the home.
`
`t__t_,i
`
`-
`
`HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE 3» FITZGERALD, LLF‘ - ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
`237 BUCKINGHAM STREET = 9.0. BOX 251798 -1 HARTFORD, CT 06126-1 798 I (860) 525-3101 6 JURIS NC}. 28160
`
`

`
`i 23. After Ms. Augeri was treated by ll/lobiie Crisis on December 10, 2013, she was
`
`cieared by Midcliesex l-lospitai to live and remain at Greystorie with its requisite level of care.
`
`24. Greystone was assured that Ms. Augeri was not a suicide risk and that the facility
`
`wouid not have to adopt any additional procedures to prevent a suicide
`
`25.-Greystone maintained sign-in and sign—out sheets, however. the facility, as a
`
`residential care home. ceuld not and did not restrict residents from leaving.
`
`I 26. On February 19. 2014, Ms.
`
`/-‘kugeri signed out of Greystone in good spirits at
`
`approximateiy 8:15 am. in order to go to a doctor’s appointment in New Haven.
`
`27. Ms. Augeri left in a taxi cab, but she had the taxi cab drop her off at a Dunkin
`
`Donuts in Portland.
`
`28. Ms. Augeri then walked to the l\/liddletown side of the Arrigoni Bridge and jumped
`
`off.
`
`i
`
`'
`
`' 29. After l\/ls. Augerrs death, the Connec:ticutDepartrnent of Health and the ll/liddletown
`
`Police Department conducted a thorough investigation and cieared Greystone of any
`
`responsibility for her death.
`
`HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGLIE 8: FITZGERALD, LLP =1 ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
`237’ BUCKINGHAM STREET - PO. BOX. 261798 0 HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798 ° (850) 525-3101 ° JURIS NO. 25150
`
`

`
`CERTEFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`el Ire nesfimarrsen-M“
`
`M
`.
`.
`Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 3-!
`
`sf" .
`day of
`
`gr
`:1 7/
`
`‘
`, 2016.
`
`
`
`Notary Pubtic
`My Commission Expires:
`
`DOUGLAS PREVflE.5E"r-
`N&’1‘ARY .PU3LIe
`MY commssron EXPIRES MAY 3% gag M
`
`‘-2’:
`
`.¢4\TTORNEYS«AT-LAW
`Howmo, KOHN SPRAGuE & FITZGERALD, LLP =-
`237 BUCKINGHAM STREET ~ Po. Box 261793 - HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798 « (860) 525-3101 s JURIS NO. 28160
`
`

`
`
`
`

`
`DGCKET NQ; MMX-CV41 5—60’l4578~S
`
`:
`
`SUPERTOR COURT
`
`MARILYN DELENE, ADMINTSTRATOR OF THE
`ESTATE OF DENISE. AUGEF{l
`:
`
`$5.01: IVIIDDLETOWN
`
`VS.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`I
`
`,
`
`GREYETQNE REST. HOME, TNC. DIBIA
`GREYSTONE RETIREMENT HOME;
`CRYSTAL PLAYER; LUEL TRENE SWANSON;
`LUCILLE IRENE SWANSON; AND
`ASHTTN ZEOLI
`
`2
`
`:
`
`AT EVIIDDLETOWN
`
`E
`T
`JULY15, 2016
`
`AFFIDAWT OF ASHTIN ZEOLI
`
`STATE ‘OF CONNECTICUT:
`-
`.
`COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX :
`
`ss:
`
`Portland, Connecticut
`a (Town)
`'
`
`_
`
`l, Ashtln Zeoli, a defendant in the above—captioned action, being duly sworn, do
`
`herehy depose and state:
`
`‘I.
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to take an oath.
`
`I am a defendant in a lawsuit commenced by Marilyn Deline, Administrator of the
`
`Estate of Denise Augeri.
`
`I 3. Marilyn Deline commenced this lawsuit against the above—captioned defendants
`I
`%
`atterher daughter, Denise Augeri, jumped off the Arrigoni Bridge in lvliddletown, Connecticut
`
`and killed herself.
`
`4. Before the decedent, lllis. Augerfs, death, she was a resident of Greystone Rest
`
`Home, Inc. dible Greystene Retirement Home (hereinafter “Greyst-tans”).
`
`

`
`'5. I was a regiatered nurse at Greystone at the time of Ms. Augerts death.
`
`6. On December 10, 2013, I received a telephone can tram a doctors effice tailing
`
`me that Ma. Augeri was upset because her ride to the dectefs affine was cancetted due te
`
`T the weather.
`
`?. t was aiso ‘said that Ms. Augeri commented that she was “done and wanted to die
`
`and jump off the bridge.”
`
`8.
`
`l notified the Mobile Crisis Unit, who came and evaluated Ms. Augeri.
`
`9. Mobtie Crisis then tetd me that Ms. Augeri was not a threat to herself.
`
`I 10: Wichita Crisis also gave Ms. Augeri a mobile crisis teieahone number to call.
`
`

`
`CERWFICATEON
`
`
`
`fish
`
`fin Zena‘; ‘“
`
`Suisacribed and sworn in before me on this
`
`day of
`
`2016.
`
`
`
`..
`
`
`
` .. FAME“ .
`__ Notary Pubflc.State ofconnectieut
`My Commission Expires Feb. 28. 2021 f
`
`.___
`
`_

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket