Heirs of Alphonse Skudlarich challenge claims commissioner’s COVID-immunity dismissal in medical-negligence case

HARTFORD — Counsel for the estate of Alphonse Skudlarich asked the Judiciary Committee on March 28 to overturn a claims-commissioner dismissal that the estate said misapplied the COVID-19 immunity provided by Governor Lamont’s Executive Order 7V.

Attorney Bridal McKee, representing the estate, said the claim concerns medical care at a Yukon (transcript spelling used by witnesses) medical facility after Mr. Skudlarich contracted COVID-19. McKee told the committee: “We are seeking a reversal of the claims commissioner's decision dismissing this medical malpractice case, and we're seeking release of jurisdiction to the superior court.” McKee argued the deputy claims commissioner applied an unduly narrow definition of “gross negligence” and improperly concluded the state’s liability was negated by subsequent negligence by a different healthcare provider.

McKee told the panel that the deputy claims commissioner “adopted a definition of gross negligence…that the negligence needed to be so obvious that you didn't need a medical expert for it,” and said Connecticut case law on the standard remains unsettled in the context of the governor’s immunity order. He added that “the negligence is not relieved by subsequent negligence of another healthcare provider,” and asked the committee to direct the matter to superior court for further review.

Attorney Bridal Amarante, representing the state, told the committee the claims commissioner’s written memorandum decision was correct. The state’s counsel pointed to existing appellate precedent and wrote in submitted testimony that, per the state’s understanding, the Supreme Court in Boone (cited in the state submission) described gross medical negligence as “an obvious and egregious violation of an established standard of care” and said that medication-administration claims rarely meet that standard.

Representative Spine and others questioned the claimant’s counsel about factual details, including that the decedent was not an inmate but an elderly man admitted for COVID symptoms in March 2020 and that claimants had submitted a health-care-provider letter before the claims-commissioner hearing. McKee said claimants had obtained a similar health-care-provider letter identifying gross negligence and argued the deputy claims commissioner nonetheless dismissed the case based on Executive Order 7V’s COVID immunity.

The committee did not vote. Claimants asked that the committee reverse the dismissal and release jurisdiction to the superior court; the state asked the committee to confirm the claims-commissioner decision. The hearing record includes written submissions from both sides and an evidentiary hearing transcript referenced by the claims commissioner’s memorandum decision.

Why this matters

The case turns on interpretation of Executive Order 7V (the executive COVID-19 immunity order referenced in testimony), the statutory and common-law standard for gross medical negligence, and whether subsequent negligence by a separate provider can relieve state liability. The question has broader implications for how immunity orders or emergency directives interact with traditional malpractice standards.