Smith v. Mediplex of Westport
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MARIE SMITH v. MEDIPLEX OF WESTPORT ET AL. (SC 17210) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued February 16 officially released May 10, 2005 Neal L. Moskow, with whom, on the brief, were Frederic S. Ury, Deborah M. Garskof and Anthony J. LaBella, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff). Robert C. E. Laney, with whom, on the brief, was Eric W. F. Niederer, for the appellee (defendant Joanne C. Reisch). Opinion PER CURIAM. The substitute plaintiff, Merilyn Smith, executrix of the estate of the plaintiff decedent, Marie Smith,1 brought an action against the defendant physician, Joanne C. Reisch,2 for medical malpractice regarding treatment of the decedent.3 After a defendant s verdict by the jury and judgment on the verdict, the plaintiff attempted pro se4 to appeal from the judgment to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff s appeal from the judgment of the trial court on the basis of late filing, the appeal having been filed one day late. The plaintiff moved for permission to file a late motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The Appellate Court denied that motion. We then granted the plaintiff s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal for late filing? Smith v. Mediplex of Westport, 269 Conn. 916, 852 A.2d 744 (2004). This certified appeal by the plaintiff followed. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 Upon the death of the plaintiff, Marie Smith, Merilyn Smith was substituted as the plaintiff in this action. Hereafter, we refer to Merilyn Smith as the plaintiff. 2 Initially, Mediplex of Westport and Mediplex of Connecticut, Inc., were also named as defendants. The counts against them were ultimately withdrawn, and the case was tried against Reisch only. Hereafter, we refer to Reisch as the defendant. 3 The plaintiff did not claim that the decedent s death was caused by the defendant s malpractice. 4 The plaintiff had been represented by counsel in the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
