 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GUPTA v. NEW BRITAIN GENERAL HOSPITAL12/31/1996
t, which would have limited the scope of the hospital's discretion. We agree with the trial court's characterization of the residency agreement.
A proper assessment of the nature of the plaintiff's employment status must take into account the language of the residency agreement as well as any circumstances that might illuminate our interpretation of this language. On the present record, despite the plaintiff's argument to the contrary, this assessment is purely a question of law.
The plaintiff contends that the parties, by emphasizing different portions of the residency agreement that favor their respective interpretations of that agreement, implicitly demonstrated that material facts were in dispute. These "facts," he contends, were not properly considered by the trial court in its decision to grant summary judgment. We disagree.
It is well settled that, for purposes of summary judgment, the moving party "has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue 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." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doty v. Mucci, supra, 238 Conn. 805-806. Merely alluding to disputed material facts, however, without providing substantiation, does not sufficiently establish those facts to preclude summary judgment. See, e.g., Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., supra, 193 Conn. 317.
The plaintiff has failed to identify any disputed issues of material fact relevant to the characterization of his
relationship with the hospital or his subsequent dismissal from the residency program. Moreover, he has offered no evidence that the parties' relationship should be interpreted by reference to conditions, statements, or any other circumstances not contemplated by the language of the residency agreement. Cf. Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 234 Conn. 1, 13-14, 662 A.2d 89 (1995) (implied employment contract inferable from words spoken between parties); Banerjee v. Roberts, 641 F. Sup. 1093, 1105-1106 (D.Conn. 1986) (question of fact arises with respect to resident's relationship with hospital where extrinsic statements made regarding terms of residency). The plaintiff's own affidavit, which was the only evidence proffered in opposition to the hospital's motion for summary judgment, merely lists some of the "non-educational, service oriented tasks" that the plaintiff performed during his residency. Because the plaintiff's performance of these tasks is undisputed, this evidence does not give rise to a question of fact regarding the proper characterization of his relationship with the hospital with respect to his dismissal for his professional failings. The plaintiff's conclusory statements, in the affidavit and elsewhere, that he and the hospital had entered into an "employment contract" do not constitute evidence sufficient to establish the existence of disputed material facts. See Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 224 Conn. 240, 250, 618 A.2d 506 (1992).
In the absence of any question of fact, the proper characterization of the residency agreement, as a matter of law, implicates a number of factors, including the language of the agreement, the purpose of the parties in entering into the agreement, and the institutional setting of the agreement. With respect to the dismissal of a resident based on his failure to attain the necessary level of clinical competence, we agree with the trial court that an analysis of these factors, in their entire
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|