`
`
`DOCKET NO: CV17-6070066-S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ESTATE OF COREY PRENDERVILLE
`THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
`ESTATE, CHARLES PRENDERVILLE,
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DR. CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR AND
`RIVER VALLEY NEUROLOGY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`
`
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`
`
`
`OCTOBER 23, 2020
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
`Practice Book §13-14(5)
`
`
`
`Defendants, CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR, M.D., (herein “Dr. Sinclair”) and RIVER
`
`VALLEY NEUROLOGY, LLC (herein “River Valley”), hereby move pursuant to Practice Book
`
`§13-14(5) for the entry of a judgment of dismissal based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with
`
`the rules of discovery and the Order of this Honorable Court dated May 21, 2020 (#143). The
`
`immediate subject matter of the instant motion concerns Plaintiff’s complete non-compliance
`
`with the defendants Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated April 11, 2018 and
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure to appear at two consecutive Court Conferences. As to the interrogatories,
`
`compliance was due on May 11, 2019. There were numerous discussions between counsel
`
`regarding the non-compliance, however no responses were ever provided. In addition to the
`
`immediate subject matter of the instant motion, the long and protracted history of this case is also
`
`relevant to the immediate motion. In total, there have been three separate lawsuits spanning back
`
`to 2013 - two of which were previously dismissed. The treatment in question occurred between
`
`2008 and 2010, over ten (10) years ago at this point. Without any discovery (no discovery
`
`responses and no depositions) from Plaintiff over the past 7 years of litigation (10 - 12 years
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`from date of treatment), the Defendants’ ability to defend this matter has been permanently
`
`impaired.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`UNDERLYING FACTS
`
`This is the third action in which Plaintiffs Charles Prenderville, as Administrator of the
`
`Estate of Corey Prenderville, and Charles Prenderville individually have brought suit against Dr.
`
`Sinclair, a Board-Certified Neurologist, and River Valley Neurology. Plaintiffs originally
`
`brought this medical malpractice action alleging improper treatment provided from September 4,
`
`2008 through December 29, 2010 to the decedent for chronic seizure disorder and chronic pain
`
`syndrome, allegedly causing the decedent’s death on January 4, 2011. The decedent’s last visit
`
`with Dr. Sinclair was on December 29, 2010.
`
`
`
`Under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-584, the Plaintiffs had 2 years from the date of death to
`
`commence the first action. Thus, the two-year statute of limitations expired on January 4, 2013.
`
`Plaintiffs obtained a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations by order dated October 1,
`
`2012, which extended the statute of limitations from January 4, 2013 to April 4, 2013. (See
`
`Plaintiff’s Petition to Extend Statute of Limitations as Exhibit A).
`
`A. FIRST ACTION WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
`
`
`
`The first action was brought by summons and complaint dated April 1, 2013, with a
`
`return date of May 7, 2013. See Plaintiffs summons and complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`However, as indicated in Plaintiffs’ Return of Service, Dr. Sinclair was not served with the
`
`summons and complaint until August 29, 2013, 114 days after the return date, and in violation of
`
`C.G.S. § 52-46, which requires service of process at least 12 days before the return date. See
`
`Return of Service attached as Exhibit C. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ return of service, acknowledges
`
`that Defendants River Valley Neurology, were served through their agent for service of Process,
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Dr. Sinclair, on August 29, 2013, 114 days after the return date, in violation of C.G.S. § 52-46.
`
`The summons, complaint and return of service was not filed with the court until September 9,
`
`2013, 125 days after the return date, in violation of C.G.S. § 52-46a, which requires that the
`
`process be filed at least six days before the return date. See print-out from the clerk’s website,
`
`attached as Exhibit D.
`
`
`
`There is absolutely no dispute on the date the statute of limitations expired, and the date
`
`the Defendants were served in the original/first action. As can be seen from the attached
`
`documents (both Defendants being served on August 29, 2013), the original/first action against
`
`the Defendants was not commenced within the time limited by law (statute of limitations with
`
`90-day extension expired on April 4, 2013).
`
`
`
`B. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST ACTION WAS DISMISSED
`
`The first action was dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve process on the Defendants in
`
`
`
`a timely manner on May 16, 2014. The same decision also denied Plaintiffs request to amend the
`
`return date and denied any allegation that Dr. Sinclair purposefully evaded service. See May 16,
`
`2014 Memorandum of Decision to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend, attached as Exhibit
`
`E.
`
`
`
`C. THE APPELLATE COURT UPHELD ALL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL COURT’S
`DECISION.
`
`Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court on June 5, 2014. They first argued that the
`
`court incorrectly concluded that an amendment to the return date was not proper. Second, they
`
`argued that the court improperly failed to consider that any prejudice of the Defendants would
`
`have been as a result of the Defendants own fraudulence or wrongful conduct. See April 12,
`
`2016 Appellate Decision, attached at Exhibit F.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`As to amending the return date, the Court noted the only proposed amended date was
`
`October 29, 2013, which was not in compliance with the requisite two-month time restriction
`
`imposed by 52-48(b). “[T]he court properly concluded that amendment of the return date to a
`
`date that was well beyond two months from the date of process would not be proper because
`
`such an amendment would violate 52-48(b).” Id.
`
`
`
`As to the allegation of fraud and wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the record revealed
`
`the Plaintiffs listed 41 Copperfield Drive, Madison on the writ on summons dated April 2, 2013,
`
`which ultimately, was the place Plaintiffs effectuated service on the Defendants on August 29,
`
`2013. The Appellate Court held, “Plaintiff’s own delay in utilizing available methods of service
`
`caused the noncompliance with the applicable service statutes, and, accordingly, deprived the
`
`court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.” Id. The parties were notified by the
`
`Appellate Court on April 1, 2016 that the decision would be made available as of April 4, 2016,
`
`but the official release date was April 12, 2016. See email dated April 1, 2016 attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit G. Thus, Plaintiffs were aware of the appellate decision as of April 4, 2016.
`
`D. SECOND ACTION WAS FILED ON JUNE 12, 2015
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ second action was filed on June 12, 2015, within the Judicial District of
`
`Middlesex at Middletown, under docket No. MMXCV15-6013723S, long before the Appellate
`
`Court heard the underlying appeal on the original dismissal. Pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss,
`
`the trial court dismissed this action on October 13, 2015 (#101.20), given that there was a “prior
`
`pending action” working its way through the Appellate Court system.
`
`E. THIRD ACTION WAS FILED ON MAY 1, 2017
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s third action (the instant matter) contains a complaint dated April 11, 2017 and
`
`a return date of May 16, 2017. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint states the action is brought pursuant
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`to C.G.S. 52-92, Connecticut’s Accidental Failure of Suit statute. The marshal purportedly
`
`received the documents to serve Dr. Sinclair on April 11, 2017. However, the Probate
`
`Certificate that authorized the action and is attached to the complaint is dated April 12, 2017,
`
`which is one day after the marshal claims to have received the documents. Dr. Sinclair was
`
`served on April 20, 2017, and the action was filed with the court on May 1, 2017.
`
`
`
`Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, dated June 15, 2017 (#101), the Plaintiffs’ April
`
`11, 2017 Complaint. Dismissal was sought for failing to comply with C.G.S. §§ 52-592, to
`
`which Plaintiffs claim this action was brought under. More specifically, it was argued that
`
`Plaintiffs cannot bring this action because the prior action was never commenced, therefore there
`
`is no action for C.G.S. §§ 52-592, the savings statute, to save. In the alternative, it was argued
`
`that Plaintiffs failed to commence this action within the one year time limitation required under
`
`C.G.S. §§ 52-592 after the determination of the original action. Lastly, it was argued that the
`
`prior action was not dismissed due to unavoidable accident or the default or neglect of the officer
`
`to whom it was committed. This Honorable Court denied Defendants’ motion citing that a
`
`motion to dismiss is not the proper procedural motion to challenge the applicability of the
`
`accidental failure of suite statute under this fact pattern (#101.1). Thus, Defendants were going
`
`to have to raise the issues via summary judgment motion at the appropriate time and discovery
`
`commenced.
`
`F. DISCOVERY ON THE THIRD ACTION
`
`On March 15, 2018, this Honorable Court entered a Scheduling Order which required the
`
`parties to exchange written discovery demands by July 14, 2018. In compliance with said order,
`
`Defendants served Plaintiffs with Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated April
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`11, 2018. Under the Practice Book rules, compliance was due on May 11, 2018. However,
`
`pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties were given until December 18, 2019. An Amended
`
`Scheduling Order was entered into on July 31, 2019, which extended Plaintiffs’ deadline to
`
`respond to written discovery to December 31, 2019. Plaintiffs never complied with Defendants’
`
`discovery demands and failed to seek an extension of time to respond. Therefore, Plaintiffs are
`
`in violation of both Scheduling Orders and the rules set forth within the Connecticut Practice
`
`Book.
`
`
`
`In response to Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the aforementioned scheduling orders and
`
`rules of practice, Defendants filed a Motion for Order on February 4, 2020 (#143). This
`
`Honorable Court granted Defendants’ Motion (#143.10) in part on May 21, 2020, in that it
`
`ordered compliance by June 17, 2020. It was also held that if there was no compliance with this
`
`Order, Defendants could file an additional motion seeking appropriate sanctions.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Honorable Court’s order of May 21st, and as such the
`
`Defendants filed a Motion for Nonsuit for Failure to Comply with Court Order (#145) on July 8,
`
`2020. At or around this time the undersigned office learned that the Hardman Law Office, listed
`
`counsel for the plaintiff had dissolved their practice. However, said firm is still listed on the
`
`court docket as the attorney for the Plaintiffs.
`
`G. COURT STATUS CONFERENCE – SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
`
`Pursuant to Court Notice dated September 4, 2020, this Honorable Court set this matter down
`
`for a Status Conference on September 24, 2020. All appearing counsel were ordered to appear
`
`and participate. The Plaintiffs were ordered to complete a Pre-Trial Memo. Lastly, the court
`
`ordered that “the court may enter sanctions if: (a) counsel or an unexcused party fails to
`
`participate in the conference . . ..” In violation to this Court Order, no one appeared at the
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`September 24th Status Conference on behalf of the Plaintiffs and no Pre-Trial Memo was
`
`prepared. Defendants appeared for the conference. During the conference, the Court decided to
`
`set the matter down for a further status conference.
`
`H. COURT STATUS CONFERENCE – OCTOBER 22, 2020
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Court Notice dated September 24, 2020, this Honorable Court set this matter
`
`down for a Pre-Trial Conference on October 22, 2020. All appearing counsel were ordered to
`
`appear and participate. The Plaintiffs were ordered to complete a Pre-Trial Memo. Lastly, the
`
`court ordered that “the court may enter sanctions if: (a) counsel or an unexcused party fails to
`
`participate in the conference . . ..” In violation to this Court Order, no one appeared at the
`
`October 22nd Status Conference on behalf of the Plaintiffs and no Pre-Trial Memo was prepared.
`
`Defendants appeared for the conference.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 13-14. Order for Compliance; Failure To
`
`Answer or Comply with Order “(a) If any party has failed to answer interrogatories . . ., or has
`
`failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order made pursuant to
`
`Sections 13-6 through 13-11, the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order as the ends
`
`of justice require. (b) Such orders may include the following: (1) The entry of a nonsuit or
`
`default against the party failing to comply; . . . (5) If the party failing to comply is the plaintiff,
`
`the entry of a judgment of dismissal.” As is established above, the Plaintiffs in his matter have
`
`failed to timely respond to Defendants’ Interrogatories and multiple orders of this Honorable
`
`Court pertaining to the same. Additionally, Plaintiffs have also failed to appear at two Court
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Ordered conferences. Given the multiple violations of the Orders of this Honorable Court,
`
`judgment of dismissal is warranted.
`
`
`
`As has been held by our Appellate Court, “[i]n order for a trial court's order of sanctions
`
`for violation of a discovery order to withstand scrutiny, three requirements must be met. First,
`
`the order to be complied with must be reasonably clear. In this connection, however, we also
`
`state that even an order that does not meet this standard may form the basis of a sanction if the
`
`record establishes that, notwithstanding the lack of such clarity, the party sanctioned in fact
`
`understood the trial court's intended meaning. This requirement poses a legal question that we
`
`will review de novo. Second, the record must establish that the order was in fact violated. This
`
`requirement poses a question of fact that we will review using a clearly erroneous standard of
`
`review. Third, the sanction imposed must be proportional to the violation. This requirement
`
`poses a question of the discretion of the trial court that we will review for abuse of that
`
`discretion.” Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 17–18, 776 A.2d
`
`1115 (2001) See Also; Forster v. Gianopoulos, 105 Conn. App. 702, 708, 939 A.2d 1242, 1246
`
`(2008). As was demonstrated above, all of the Court’s Orders were perfectly clear. There was
`
`no ambiguity. Also, as is demonstrated above, this Court’s Orders pertaining to discovery were
`
`violated and as this Court is aware Plaintiff’s failed to appear at the two aforementioned
`
`conferences. Lastly, dismissal is certainly warranted as defendants have now been forced to
`
`litigate this matter (and the two prior matters) over the course of 7 years without the benefit of a
`
`single discovery compliance being made and absolutely no depositions being taken. It is also
`
`important to note that the treatment in question occurred from 2008 through 2010, between 10
`
`and 12 years ago. Within the State of Connecticut, medical offices are only required to maintain
`
`patient records for seven years. Thus, even if Plaintiffs were to comply with Defendants
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`discovery demands, one of which is the production of HIPAA compliance medical
`
`authorizations, Defendants would most likely be unsuccessful in obtaining records necessary to
`
`its defense. Thus, Plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the various orders of this court will prevent
`
`defendant from mounting a fair defense. Thus, judgment of dismissal is proportional to the
`
`violation.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that
`
`Defendants’ motion should be granted and this Honorable Court should enter a judgment of
`
`dismissal. In the alternative, Plaintiff’s claim should be nonsuited. Along with any other relief
`
`that the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEFENDANTS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: __s/ James F. Biondo___
`James F. Biondo
`Rosenblum Newfield LLC
`1 Landmark Square
`Stamford, CT 06901
`Juris No. 404341
` Tel: 203-358-9200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`A copy of the foregoing Motion was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 23, 2020, to all
`
`counsel of record and pro se parties as follows. A copy of the motion is being e-filed. The
`
`original will be maintained within the offices of the undersigned.
`
`
`
`The Hardman Law Offices, LLC
`93 Broad Street
`Middletown, CT 06457
`
`
`
`
`
`By: __s/ James F. Biondo___
`James F. Biondo
`Commissioner of Superior Court
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`-,_.-I-
`
`‘11
`
`IQH—s“
`
`ESTATE OF
`
`‘
`
`COREY PRENDERVILLE
`
`V-
`
`,
`
`..
`
`,
`
`"
`
`g
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`3.1) 0F MIDDLETOWN
`
`ATMIDDLETOWN
`
`
`
`STONINGTON INSTITUTION
`DR CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR ‘
`NATCHAUG HOSPITAL, ANY ANDEALL
`OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDESETHAT
`RENDER OF CARE TO COREYr
`PRENDERVILLE
`
`
`
`OCTOBER 1 ,2012
`
`PETITION'FOR AUTEOMATIC EXTENSION OF
`:
`_ STATUTE 9;er LIMITATIONS
`cl
`
`{Pursuant to §53419Qa’(b) of the ctEjttnccttCttt General Statutes, the Plaintiffhereby
`
`petitions the Clerk Of the Cout‘tffot an autfgmatlc mnety—day extensron of the Statute of
`
`Limitations Onthe above action.
`
`
`
`111:: Plaintifl‘belieyesgtherehas b55311 negltgence 111 the treatment by the above
`
`
`
`.
`
`._____,_
`
`,
`
`3
`
`named health sate providers find their agéhts, Stonington Institution, Dr Christopher
`Sinclait and Natchaug HOspflaI, any and all other health care p1ovjdes that rendered cart:
`to €016}! Prenderville on or ahOut January 201 l. The Plaintiffreqmstsétiméfi
`.
`5:1
`:il
`5 {5 N " 2;:
`3
`reasonablemquiryrequired by subsectlon;5(a) ofConnecticut Generallfiatutem§52m-
`5
`155:”:
`I
`~31}?
`5
`190(a). Ifthe appltcant/Plamtliffiles an actlon against the potenttézfifio‘fendants sh'eimll -
`"E
`232:: a__>__ a
`5
`9- __
`:3 OOSO111thiscourtmfhintheextendedpermdtutttme
`g H z 55:;
`S:
`c e
`-‘
`“‘
`Q
`O"
`
`
`
`—Attoh'teyTracey'E.Hardman
`
`
`TheHardmanLawOffices {=5
`
`
`
`
`
`JurisNumber432329
`
`
`
`,Middletown,CT06457,Phone:860-344—9230Fax:511877—298~7151
`
`

`

`III
`...3.r».u3v3.¢fl..»fifir...4...|........Ii..5.3...4.”.n..h..n.,.....”..uq._l..uxmufirfiflanflfl“wanna.............:R3.?«final.HS.3.........
`
`
`.03H.;.
`
`'The'foregdigié mqtfion, havi’r’ii;
`
`GRANTED‘E
`
`%<5...
`fl;
`‘
`
`n x
`
`
`
`
`
`e
`
`¢W
`
`..byw.D.b.C3.
`
`
`;_Rm.m.
`......,m.m,..pT.mm3
`.m3Q.a,he0W.¢J...
`V.a)!J.
`
`m.m.
`
`
`
`mmmmmifigz3.:_
`
`
`
`RE.mom.Rm-E.5mcmwa-gm-own.0355$5.8.523.32%...23..8w5850..3239K02
`
`
`
`
`583.5Emhuman"H553?...I33.50..2:5555E05.,,,
`
`
`
`V._
`
`5
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`:‘v
`
`WHEREFORE, forthe fmegomgreasons the Piaintiff estate of Corey
`
`Prenderville, respectfully requests an autg‘matic 90-day extension oftime from the Statute
`
`ofLimitartironS'in which to file suit,
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQLESTED
`TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
`_
`
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`‘
`
`1
`
`ESTATE OF COREY PRE DERVILLE
`
`
`
`‘
`
`N:5‘watt
`
`_
`
`,
`
`Tracey E. Hardman '
`The Hardman Law 0' ces, LLC
`100 Riverview Center Ste. 204
`Middletown, CT 06457
`Telephone (860) 344—9232
`Juris No. 432329
`
`_
`
`f‘
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`;TheHardmanLawOffices—Atto'rne)"TraceyE.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Harfiman100RjiverviewCenter,Ste.2,04,VMiddlet0wn,CT06457,Phone:860-344—9230Fax:1-877-298-7151;Juris
`
`Number432329
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I":
`
`-
`
`NGTKCE TG CflElNSEL
`
`Your petition for extension of the statute of limitations has been automaticaliy granted in
`
`accordance with,~a.nd to the extent provided for by, (3.6.3. § 52-190a(b) as indicated on
`
`the order on the attached original of the petition. A copy of the petition Wiil be
`
`maintained by the Clerk’s Office for a peiiod of six months after it is granted. A civil
`
`entry'fee will be collected atflie tinie‘the whit, gumnmns and complaint are‘fil’e’d' With the
`
`clerk’s office, if and when you bring suit. ‘
`
`Please remember to include the oliginal petition with your writ summons and complaint
`
`when you return them to court!
`
`Original of petition and this
`notice returned to counsel on:
`
`[01:244.
`
`
`
`1.
`Sup i‘o Cat: or (he Judicial Dgtr‘ict ofMiddlesex
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`SUMMONS - CIVIL
`mew Rev. 10.09
`C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51—347, 517349. 51~350, 52-458.
`52-48 52259, RE. Secs 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`SUPERIOR COURT
`.
`www.1ud.ct.gov
`
`See page 2 for instructions
`
`-
`
`d
`
`t
`
`-
`
`.
`cl din
`
`-
`
`nterest and
`
`TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby
`- commanded to make due and legal servrce 0f
`this Summons and attached Compiaint.
`
`"
`
`"
`
`.
`
`.
`
`
`
`g I
`D CESILTQSEQIiIggiénégg‘Ifi or property In deman ' no In u
`[x]
`"X" if amount, legal interest or property in demand. not including interest and
`costs is $2,500 or more.
`[:I "X" if claiming other reiief i
`‘1 addition to or in lieu of money or damages.
`
`Address of court clerk where writ and other papers shall be filed (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk
`Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
`(C as, §§ 51—345. 51—350)
`(with area code)
`013
`
`
` t 860 ) 344—9232 —~——~——MAYMany,1 COURT sr. MIDDLETOWN, CT 06457 0:1; 2%, IX!
`
`
`
`Judicta.’ District
`I At (Town in which writ is returnable) (0.6.8 §§ 51-346, 51-349)
`
`G.A.
`Case type code (See list on page 2)
`I:I Housin Sesston
`CI Number:
`MIDDLESEX
`Ma‘or: T
`Minor: 28
`
`For the Plaintiffis) please enter the appearance of:
`Name and address of attorney. law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code)
`Tracey Hardman, The Hardman Law Offices, 100 Riverview Ctr., Ste. 204, Middletown, CT 06457
`Telephone number (With area code)
`Signature of Plaintiff (Ifself-represented)
`(860 ) 344-9232
`
`Juris number {to be entered by attorney only)
`432329
`
`Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties
`4
`Number of Defendants:
`3
`Number of Plaintiffs:
`
`
`Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party (Number; Street; PO. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, ifnot USA)
`Name:
`PRENDERVILLE, CHARLES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF COREY PRENDERVILLE
`P-O’I
`Address: 29 FRONT ST
`II . I
`. A
`L
`0 n I
`
`First
`.
`.
`Plaintiff
`
`.
`.
`Agf’FwI‘a'
`alntlff
`
`First
`Defendant
`Additional
`D fendant
`°
`Add' .
`Itronal
`Defendant
`
`Additional
`Defendant
`
`PRENDERVILLE, CHARLES
`Name?
`Address: 29 FRONT ST.
`u I [I TO .
`. A 7
`
`Name:
`Address:
`
`SINCLAIR, CHRISTOPER
`41 COPPERFIELD DR.
`.
`tr . DI
`.
`CT . ‘4‘
`:
`RIVER VALLEY NEUROLOGY CID AGENT OF SERVICE CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR
`Name:
`Address: 577 SAYBROOK ROAD
`MIDDLETOWN CT 06457
`RIVER VALLEY NEUROLOGY CIO AGENT OF SERVICE CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR
`Name:
`.
`Address. 410 LANTERN WAY
`WINDSOR CT 060'5
`RIVER VALLEY NEUROLOGY C10 AGENT OF SERVICE CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR
`Name:
`Address: 41 COPPERFIELD DR.
`
`Notice to Each Defendant
`
`P-OZ
`
`D-50
`
`D-51
`
`D—52
`
`0-53
`
`
`
`1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each plaintiff is making
`against you in this lawsuit.
`2. To be notified of further proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an "Appearance" with the clerk of the above-named Court at the above
`Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the
`Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court.
`If you or your attorney do not file a written ”Appearance" form on time, a judgment may be entered against you by default. The "Appearance" form may be
`obtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct.gov under "Court Forms."
`If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this iawsuit, you shouid immediateiy Contact your
`iriSurance representative. Other action you may have to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found in a superior court law
`library or on-line at wwwjudctgov under "Court Rules."
`if you have questions about the Summons and Complaint, you should talk to an attorney quickly. The Clerk of Court is not allowed to give advice on
`legal questions.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`gfigrggsggflOf the Name of Person Signing at Left
`Signe- (Sign and "X" pqmni #
`=ng '
`l:l Assistant Clerk
`Tracey Hardman
`
`If this Summons i@ by a Clerk:
`a. The signing ha n ~ a done so that the Plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts.
`b. It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law.
`6. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
`d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or
`omissions in the Summons, any allegations contained in the Complaint, orthe service ofthe Summons or Complaint.
`[ certify I have read and
`Signed (Self-Represented Plaintiff)
`Date
`understand the above:
`
`Date signed
`4/1/2013
`For Court Use Only
`File Date
`
`Nameandaddressofperson recognized toprosecute intheamountof$250
`w
`STEPHEN HRYNiEWCZ
`
`Si9”9d¥om°’a”akin9 recogmlance‘">("pmnerbmfi
`E gjgfigseagfiuiihe Date
`\
`"Fm
`'
`Assistant Clerk
`4/1/2013
`(Page i of 2)
`
`Docket-Number
`
`7
`
`’
`
`7
`
`~
`_
`
`

`

`CIVIL SUMMONS
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`CONTINUATION OF PARTIES
`JD—CV-2
`Rev. 9—12
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`First named Plaintiff (Last, First, Middle Initial)
`
`PRENDERVILLE, CHARLES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF COREY PRENDERVILLE
`First named Defendant (Last. First, Middle initial)
`'
`
`SINCLAIR, CHRISTOPHER
`
`Additional Plaintiffs
`
`
`Name (Last, First, Middle Initial, ii individual)
`Address (Nymlzer, Street, TOM/13'1" Zip Code)
`‘LCODEI
`PRENDERVILLE, ALICE
`03
`
`29 FRONT ST. MIDDLETOWN, CT 05457
`
`04
`
`
`05
`
`i_.
`J—
`I
`
`06 7
`
`07
`
`1‘
`08
`
`L
`A
`
`
`I
`09
`1. 0
`
`_J
`11
`
`I—
`I_
`12
`
`l—
`1 3
`
`
`L.
`
`Additional Defendants
`
`'_N_ame (Last, First, Middle Initial, ifindividual)
`Address (Number, Street, Town and Zip Code)
`5035
`05
`
`I
`—l
`
`06
`
`-
`I-
`I
`07 I
`
`I—
`I‘—
`‘_
`08
`
`
`09
`
`
`,_
`
`_|
`
`11 j
`I—
`'_F0R COURT USE ONLY- File Date
`
`10
`J_
`
`
`
`1 2
`
`
`I
`
`T j
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"H"
`T
`I
`I
`
`13
`
`
`14 monks! number
`._-._i
`
`CIVIL SUMMONS-Continuation
`
`
`
`

`

`instructions
`
`1. Type or print legibly; sign summons.
`2. Prepare or photocopy a summons for each defendant.
`3, Attach the original summons to the original complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint, Also,
`if there are more than 2 plaintifi‘s or more than 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-Z and attach it to the original and all cepies
`of the complaint.
`4. After service has been made by a proper officer, file original papers and officer's return with the clerk of court.
`5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance.
`6, Do not use this form for the following actions:
`
`(a) Family matters (for example divorce, child
`support, custody, paternity, and visitation
`matters).
`(13) Summary process actions.
`(0) Applications for change of name.
`
`Probate appeals.
`(d)
`(e) Administrative appeals.
`(0
`Proceedings pertaining to arbitration.
`(9) Any actions or proceedings in which an attachment,
`garnishment or replevy is sought.
`
`Case Type Codes
`
`
`
`Major
`
`
`Description
` Minor Description
`
`Contracts
`Construction - All other
`
` Torts (Other than
`Defective Premises - Private - Snow or Ice
`Construction - State and Local
`
`Vehicular)
`Defective Premises - Private - Other
`
`
`
`Insurance Policy
`Defective Premises ~ Public - Snow or ice
`
`Specific Performance
`Defective Premises - Public - Other
`
`
`
`Collections
`Products Liability - Otherthan Vehicular
`
`All other
`Malpractice - Medical
`
`
`Malpractice - Legal
`
`
`Eminent Domain
`State Highway Condemnation
`Malpractice - All other
`
`Redevelopment Condemnation
`
`
`Assault and Battery
`
`Other State or Municipal Agencies
`
`Defamation
`
`Public Utilities & Gas Transmission Companies
`
`
`Animals - Dog
`All other
`
`
`Animals - Other
`
`
`False Arrest
`
`Miscellaneous
`M 00
`Injunction
`Fire Damage
`
`M 10
`Receivership
`All other
`M 20
`Mandamus
`
`
`Motor Vehicles“ . Driver and/or
`Vehicular Torts
`
`Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s)
`
`Motor Vehicles' - Pedestrian vs. Driver
`
`
`Motor Vehicles" - Property Damage only
`
`Motor Vehicle’ - Products Liability including Warranty
`Motor Vehicle” - All other
`
`Boats
`
`Airplanes
`
`Railroads
`
`Snowmobiles
`
`All other
`
`
`*Motor Vehicles include cars. trucks, motorcycles,
`and motor scooters.
`
`M 30
`
`M 40
`M 50
`M 63
`M 66
`M 68
`M 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iviajor
`
`Description
`
`Minor Description
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wills, Estates
`Construction of Wills and Trusts
`
`and Trusts
`A” Other
`
`
`
`Habeas Corpus (extradition, release from
`Penal institution)
`Arbitration
`Declaratory Judgment
`Bar Discipline
`Bar Discipline ~ Reinstatement
`Bar Discipline - inactive Status
`Foreign Civii Judgments - (16.8. 52-604 &
`C.G.S. 50a-30
`M82
`Housing Civil Matters
`M83
`Small Claims Transfer to Regular Docket
`M84
`Foreign Protective Order
`M90
`All other
`
`
`
`
`
`Property
`
`Foreclosure
`Partition
`
`P 00
`
`Qurei Title/Discharge of Mortgage or Lien
`
`Asset Forfeiture
`All other
`
`
`
`JD»CV‘1 Rev. 10-09
`
`(Page 2 of 2)
`
`

`

`RETURN DATE: MAY 7, 2013
`
`PRENDERVILLE, CHARLES ESTATE OF
`COREY PRENDERVILE,
`PRENDERVILLE, CHARLES,
`PRENDERVILLE, ALICE
`
`VS.
`
`,
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`“
`
`'
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`DR. CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR
`RIVER VALLEY NEUROLOGY
`
`:
`
`1
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JD. OF MIDDLESEX
`
`AT MIDDLETOWN
`
`APRIL 1, 2013
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COUNT ONE: NEGLIGENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF COREY
`PRENDERVILLE AS TO DR. CHRISTOPHER SINCLAIR
`
`1.
`
`On or about January 4, 2011, the Plaintiff, Charles Prenderville, was
`
`appointed Administrator of the Estate of his son Corey Prenderville by the Probate Court
`
`for the District of Middletown, Connecticut, and acting as such Administrator, and in his
`
`individual capacity, brings this action for the death of Corey Prenderville pursuant to §
`
`52-555 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Pursuant to 52—10% (b) of the Connecticut
`
`General Statutes the Plaintiff had obtained a 90-day extension of the statute of limitation )
`
`which is attached hereto.
`
`2.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the Defendant, Dr. Christopher Sinclair,
`
`held himself out to general public as a neurologist licensed to practice medicine in the
`
`State of Connecticut.
`
`—___—————-———-——_____._______,_———__—--————————.._______________
`
`
`
`
`
`JurisNumber432329
`
`
`TheHardmanLawOffices—Attorney
`
`
`
`TraceyEHardman100RiverviewCenter,Ste.204,Middletown,CT06457,Phone:860—344-9230Fax:1-877-298-7151
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the Defendant, Dr. Christopher Sinclair,
`
`was a servant, agent, apparent agent and/or employee, of the co—Defendant, River Valley
`
`Neurology
`
`~ 4.
`
`,
`
`Commencing'on or about 9/4/2008 and continuously until on or abOut
`
`12/29/2010, the Defendant, Dr. Christopher Sinclair, and his servants, agents, apparent
`
`agents and/or employees, undertook the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and
`
`supervision of the Plaintiff, Corey Prenderville.
`
`5.
`
`While under the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and supervision
`
`of the Defendant, Dr. Christopher Sinclair, the Plaintiff, the Estate of Corey Prenderville
`
`suffered the death of Corey Prenderville as hereinafter set forth in paragraphs 7 & 8.
`
`6.
`
`The injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, the Estate of Corey Prenderville,
`
`were caused by the failure of the Defendant, Dr. Christopher Sinclair, and his sen/ants,
`
`agents, apparent agents and/or employees, to exercise that degree of care and skill
`
`ordinarily and customarily used by physicians under all the circumstances then and there
`
`present in that they:
`
`(a)
`
`failed to adequately and properly care for, treat, diagnose, monitor and
`
`supervise the patient, Corey Prenderville; and/or
`
`
`
`
`TheHa'rdmanLawOffices~Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`Number432329
`
`
`
`
`
`TraceyE.Hardman100RiverviewCenter,Ste.204,Middletown,CT06457,Phone:860-344-9230Fax:1—877—298-7151Juris
`
`

`

`mm
`
`(b)
`
`failed to properly diagnose and/or recognize the signs of addiction in,
`
`Corey Prenderville; and/or
`
`(0)
`
`failed to keep accurate records of visits and medications during the course
`
`of treatment of, Corey Prenderville; and/or ,
`
`.
`
`(d)
`
`0
`
`A
`
`v
`
`negligently administrated medication to, Corey Prenderville; and/or
`
`failed to create and/or implement a proper treatment plan for the, Corey
`
`Prenderville; and/or
`
`(t)
`
`failed to document any explanation to the patient of the risks, benefits, and
`
`alternatives to opiate treatment and failed to obtain the patient’s informed
`
`consent for such treatments; and/or
`
`(g) were further negligent as detailed in attached expert medical opinion.
`
`7.
`
`As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the Defenda