MICHELLE DILIETO et al. v. COUNTY OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY GROUP, P.C., et al., SC 19297

Judicial District of Waterbury

 

      Interest; Whether Postjudgment Interest was Awarded at an Excessive Rate; Whether Defendants were Improperly Required to Pay Interest on Postjudgment Interest Award. On July 14, 2006, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in this medical malpractice action.  The Supreme Court reversed the judgment only as to the trial court's ruling on offer of judgment interest.  On remand, the trial court rendered a revised judgment of $9.25 million, which the defendants paid on October 28, 2010.  Thereafter, the plaintiff sought postjudgment interest from July 14, 2006, to October 28, 2010, under General Statutes § 37-3b, which, at the time of the plaintiff's injury, provided that "interest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, may be recovered and allowed in any action to recover damages for injury to the person . . . caused by negligence, computed from the date of judgment."  The trial court declined to award postjudgment interest, and the plaintiff appealed.  The Supreme Court reversed the ruling upon concluding that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard in deciding the plaintiff's claim.  On November 5, 2013, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to postjudgment interest on the revised judgment of $9.25 million from July 14, 2006, to October 28, 2010, at the rate of eight percent per year, amounting to an interest award of nearly $3.18 million.  In addition, the court ordered that postjudgment interest at the rate of three percent per year be paid on the unsatisfied portion of the judgment—the $3.18 million—from the date it was due, that is, October 28, 2010, until the total judgment is paid in full.  The defendants appeal, claiming that the trial court improperly awarded postjudgment interest for the period between 2006 and 2010 at an excessive rate of eight percent per year without regard to the interest rates then available to the plaintiff.  The defendants also claim that the trial court wrongly required them to pay interest on the postjudgment interest award starting on October 28, 2010, rather than on November 5, 2013, the date that the trial court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to postjudgment interest.