Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital

304 Conn. 754, 43 A.3d 567 (2012)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital

Connecticut Supreme Court
304 Conn. 754, 43 A.3d 567 (2012)

Facts

Charles Gianetti (plaintiff) was a plastic surgeon who worked as an independent contractor. Gianetti had a contract that allowed him to operate at Norwalk Hospital (Norwalk) (defendant). For years, Gianetti and three other plastic surgeons provided on-call services to the emergency departments at Norwalk and several other hospitals in the Bridgeport area, often being on-call at more than one hospital. In 1983, Gianetti earned $43,687 from Norwalk and $172,890 from other hospitals, for a total gross income of $216,577. Norwalk declined to renew Gianetti’s privileges the following year. Gianetti continued at the other hospitals, increasing his services. In 1984, without any income from Norwalk, he earned $225,815. Gianetti sued Norwalk for breach of contract, alleging that it had failed to follow required procedures before terminating his privileges. In support of his damages claim, Gianetti testified that: (1) had Norwalk not breached the contract, he would have had the time and capacity to perform the additional work at other hospitals along with his usual work for Norwalk, (2) the additional work would have been profitable, and (3) he never declined on-call requests and would have performed the extra work regardless of Norwalk’s actions. The trial court found that Norwalk had breached its contractual obligation to follow proper procedures. The court also determined that Gianetti qualified as a lost-volume seller. This meant that the additional income Gianetti had earned in 1984 from the other hospitals was not a substitute for his lost Norwalk income but rather extra earnings that he would have earned anyway. Therefore, Gianetti could recover the full amount of his lost Norwalk earnings without any offset for the other income. Among other issues raised on appeal, Norwalk contested the trial court’s determination that Gianetti was a lost-volume seller. Norwalk argued that Gianetti’s extra work at the other hospitals replaced Gianetti’s lost Norwalk work, so Gianetti had not suffered any real damages from the breach.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Zarella, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership