Wrongful Conduct Rule
Court Applies Wrongful Conduct Rule To Preclude Claim: The generally articulated common-law wrongful conduct rule provides that a plaintiff cannot maintain a tort action for injuries that are sustained as the direct result of his or her knowing and intentional participation in a criminal act. Injuries arising from volitional criminal conduct cannot, as a matter of public policy, provide a basis for recovery. However, there must be a sufficient causal nexus between the plaintiff’s illegal conduct and his alleged injuries to bar recover.
For example, “a medical professional treating a patient for an opioid addiction owes the same duty of care to the patient regardless of whether the patient obtained the opioids legally or illegally. Society has an interest in treating the patient’s addiction, whatever its cause, and in ensuring that medical professionals providing such treatment do so to the applicable standard of care. For that reason, if a patient suffers injuries related to his addiction, such as hospitalizations or worsening health, due to the doctor’s breach of that duty of care, the wrongful conduct rule would have no application to claims stemming from such injuries. On the other hand, if the patient commits a robbery to obtain money to buy more opiates and suffers injuries arising from his arrest, the wrongful conduct rule would apply to preclude that patient from recovering for injuries arising from the robbery, regardless of whether the addiction that led him to commit the robbery was the result of illegal conduct. This reasoning is consistent with the public policy of encouraging individuals to seek treatment for illegal behavior, while not permitting an individual who has chosen to continue to engage in criminal conduct to shift the blame for that conduct to others.”
Recovery is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. Then recovery is denied despite the defendant’s wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination.
In a Connecticut medical malpractice case the Connecticut appellate court decided on February 10, 2023, Daniel Lastrina, who had been using marijuana regularly for years, wanted a medical marijuana certificate so that if his employer drug tested him at work, he would not get fired. In pursuit of that goal, he reviewed the list of debilitating medical conditions that qualify for medical marijuana use and decided that, although he did not suffer from any of those conditions, he could convince a doctor that he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In its opinion dated February 10, 2023, the Connecticut appellate court held: “Daniel, by his own admission, accomplished his criminal purpose when he obtained medical marijuana by lying to the defendants and suffered injuries due to his use of the medical marijuana he wrongfully acquired through his criminal deception. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the undisputed facts establish a direct causal connection between Daniel’s injuries and his illegal conduct … the plaintiff conceded that Daniel’s conduct in seeking to obtain medical marijuana by fraud constituted a felony, albeit an unclassified one. For that reason, the court addressed the only disputed point—whether that felony was ‘‘serious’’ for purposes of applying the wrongful conduct rule. On appeal, however, the plaintiff offers no argument as to why Daniel’s illegal conduct was not ‘‘serious’’ and, instead, appears to concede this point by arguing that ‘‘the undisputed admitted facts establish only that Daniel’s conduct was serious” … given that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Daniel’s conduct in fraudulently obtaining medical marijuana constituted a violation of § 21a-266 (a) and that such a violation constitutes a felony pursuant to § 21a-255 (c), we have no difficulty concluding that Daniel’s violation of this state’s controlled substances act warrants application of the wrongful conduct rule.”
Source Lastrina v. Bettauer (AC 44509) Lastrina v. Burnham (AC 44510)
If you or a loved one have suffered serious harm or death as a result of medical negligence in Connecticut or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Connecticut medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.