BishopAccountability.org
	Judiciary Committee Passes Proposal to Change Statute of Limitations on Sexual Abuse Civil Lawsuits By Arielle Levin Becker The Hartford Courant March 30, 2010 http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-statute-of-limitations-0330.artmar30,0,3426554.story HARTFORD — - A proposal to change the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits in child sexual abuse cases cleared the judiciary committee by a 23-20 vote Monday but only after lawmakers revised it to maintain some restrictions on those currently barred from suing. Under current law, victims of child sexual abuse have until they turn 48 — 30 years after they turn 18 — to file lawsuits. The original proposal, inspired in part by pending sexual abuse lawsuits involving St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center, would have eliminated the statute of limitations for civil cases involving child sexual abuse, assault or exploitation. But after a public hearing during which victims of sexual abuse supported the change and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church opposed it, lawmakers changed the proposal, allowing victims 48 and older to sue only if they can clear certain hurdles. They would not be allowed to file independent lawsuits but would be able to join a pending lawsuit brought by someone younger than 48 if the cases involve the same defendant and substantially similar allegations. The proposal would also require anyone 48 or older to show up front when filing a lawsuit that there is documentary or physical evidence — such as DNA, a photograph or correspondence — to support his or her claim. "It's designed to put a very significant hurdle in the way of anyone filing a claim once [the person is over 48]," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, the committee co-chairman. Lawlor, D- East Haven, likened the concept to a requirement intended to weed out frivolous medical malpractice cases by requiring that lawsuits include a letter from a physician who agrees that the case involves malpractice. Timothy O'Keefe, a Hartford attorney who testified for the bill, said that the committee struck a fair balance between the needs of victims and concerns expressed by opponents. O'Keefe's law firm represents more than 60 people suing St. Francis in a case that could be affected by the bill. The case stems from abuse by Dr. George Reardon, who worked at St. Francis for 30 years. Reardon died in 1998. In 2007, a homeowner renovating Reardon's former West Hartford home found more than 50,000 slides and 100 movie reels of child pornography hidden in a wall. Since then, about 140 people have sued the hospital, alleging that it was negligent in failing to stop the abuse. More than 50 plaintiffs were older than 48 when their lawsuits were filed. Their cases are moving forward, but could face a challenge because of the plaintiffs' ages. Other people who say they were abused by Reardon said they have not sued because they are too old. The hospital has said that it did not know of the specific allegations against Reardon until 1993, when state health officials moved to revoke Reardon's license. In a written statement Monday, the hospital said that it would be premature to comment on the vote. "We have just received the revised text and we are assessing it," the statement said. During an emotional hearing earlier this month, victims spoke about struggling to come to terms with the abuse they faced as children. Brad Hotchkiss of Branford spoke of being sexually abused as a child and dulling the pain with alcohol until he was 30. It took four years of counseling to feel strong enough to tell his family. He later sued, and although his abuser had no money, Hotchkiss said it was important to see the man take responsibility. In written testimony, Hotchkiss said that he was fortunate to have come to terms with his abuse when he was young enough to confront his abuser in the legal system, but that others who took longer to reach that point cannot. Representatives of the Catholic Church and St. Francis, a Catholic hospital, opposed the bill. Opponents argued that eliminating the statute of limitations would lead to problematic lawsuits involving outdated evidence and faded memories, and discourage the timely reporting of abuse. They also said the bill was unfair because it would not apply to state institutions, leaving some victims without protection. On Monday, the committee amended the bill to allow more time for victims to sue the state. State Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester, a sponsor of the bill, said the existing age limit provides a "very artificial distinction" between victims. Several lawmakers said they were affected by the testimony of victims but would vote against the bill because of the importance of statutes of limitations. State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, called the stories "mind-boggling" and said he has been frustrated by statutes of limitations in his law practice. "But I have to balance that with the notion that we have statutes of limitations for a reason, and as horrible as that is, we have to afford folks that are accused of these crimes the basic ability to muster a case in their own defense and I think Connecticut has a very generous statute of limitations on the books as it stands," he said. State Rep. Ernest Hewett, D- New London, took a different view. "I'm going to tell you some memories that don't get old," he said. "Those people that were abused, their memories don't get old. They will live it every day of their lives."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.