Paslar v. Mandara, 3:16-CV-1645. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20180518b06
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 15, 2018
Latest Update: May 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 68) JANET C. HALL , District Judge . Defendants Tully Health Center, Stamford Hospital, Stamford Health Medical Group, Inc., and Stamford Health, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against them on February 27, 2018. See Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68). In it, they argued that the plaintiffs had not disclosed an expert witness to support a medical negligent claim against them and that the other defendant, Dr
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 68) JANET C. HALL , District Judge . Defendants Tully Health Center, Stamford Hospital, Stamford Health Medical Group, Inc., and Stamford Health, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against them on February 27, 2018. See Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68). In it, they argued that the plaintiffs had not disclosed an expert witness to support a medical negligent claim against them and that the other defendant, Dr...
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 68)
JANET C. HALL, District Judge.
Defendants Tully Health Center, Stamford Hospital, Stamford Health Medical Group, Inc., and Stamford Health, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against them on February 27, 2018. See Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68). In it, they argued that the plaintiffs had not disclosed an expert witness to support a medical negligent claim against them and that the other defendant, Dr. Silvio Mandara, was not any of their agents. See id. On March 19, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Declaration in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, acknowledging that their experts did not identify any deviations from proper medical practice on the part of any defendant other than Dr. Mandara. See Declaration in Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 72) at ¶¶ 9, 11. The plaintiffs took no position in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. See id. at ¶ 12. They further represented to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector that they do not oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, absent objection, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
