CT Supreme Court rules that, in some cases, non-patients can sue doctors for bad decisions

Hartford Courant – Friday, July 31, 2026
By Edmund H. Mahony

The state Supreme court on Friday created a new, if narrow, legal pathway that allows people who are not patients to pursue damages for medical decisions made by mental health professionals.

The high court decision arose from a case involving the estate of a young woman who was shot to death by a middle-aged man with whom she was in a romantic relationship after he was discharged from an involuntary mental health commitment at Hartford Healthcare’s St. Vincent Medical Center affiliate in Westport.

A trial court had dismissed much of the suit, concluding that the claims involved medical malpractice and, under an earlier state Supreme Court ruling, that only patients can sue for malpractice.

On appeal, the Supreme Court said the claims at issue in the suit involved negligence rather than malpractice because the medical center and its physicians failed to act on what the justices said was their duty to warn the victim of the danger she faced from her ex-boyfriend’s discharge.

“We conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that all of the (victim’s) allegations against the (medical center) sound in medical malpractice,” the majority decision by Justice William H. Bright Jr. said. “To the extent that the complaint alleges that the (medical center) actually knew that the patient posed a substantial risk of imminent physical harm to an identifiable victim and failed to exercise reasonable care to protect that victim, including, for instance, by failing to warn her or to adequately control the patient, we conclude that the claims sound in ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice.

“We further hold, for the first time, that a mental health care provider who actually knows that his or her patient poses a substantial risk of imminent physical harm to an identifiable victim has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect that victim from that danger …We clarify in this opinion both the narrow circumstances under which this duty arises and the limited scope of the duty.“

Evidence taken from the Ashworth estate lawsuit and presented in court asserts that the victim, Caroline Anne Ashworth, and her killer, Michael Mollow, were involved in a dysfunctional relationship by early 2020. She was 18 years old and Mollow, a dentist from Branford, was 57.

Mollow was paying Ashworth’s rent, but stopped, putting her in debt and compelling her to move in with him. They purchased a truck together for Ashworth’s use, but Mollow secretly retained title and equipped it with attacking device.

The Branford Police Department responded to multiple disturbance calls involving the two. Ashworth complained that Mollow struck, choked and threatened to shoot her; blocked her cellphone signal and prevented her from working.

Mollow admitted to the police that he was tracking Ashcroft with GPS equipment and owned firearms. He said he was disturbed because she was socializing with other men.

On Aug. 22, 2022, Ashworth moved out of Mollow’s home and took the truck to Alabama to visit her grandmother. The next day, Mollow presented himself at the emergency department at MidState Medical Center and told the staff that he was “emotionally distraught.” According to the complaint, he said he had “specific homicidal ideations” toward Ashworth and feared that he would hurt her if she returned to Connecticut.

Mollow told the medical staff he was “obsessed” with Ashworth, was unable to sleep, was using alcohol and Xanax obtained “off the street,” and “did not feel able to remain safe outside a hospital environment . . . .” He said he had a pistol permit and kept firearms in his home.

MidState ordered a 15-day, involuntary emergency commitment based on the belief, according to the Ashworth estate complaint, that Mollow “had psychiatric disabilities,” was a danger to himself or others, and needed “immediate care and treatment in a hospital . . . .”

In the hospital record, a MidState physician wrote that Mollow presented, among other things, with “positive homicidal ideation” toward Ashworth. The hospital provided the information it had complied to the Branford Police department, which also is named in the suit by Ashworth’s estate.

A day after he appeared at MidState, Mollow was transferred by ambulance to St. Vincent’s under the commitment. His medical record showed that, at the time of the transfer, Mollow was demonstrating “anger and nonspecific thoughts of hurting his ex-girlfriend” and a “tendency toward obsessive thinking.” His status remained an “involuntary admission,” according to the complaint.

Upon admission to St. Vincent’s, Mollow told medical personnel of the same symptoms involving thoughts of harming or killing Ashworth.

About two days after the transfer, an attending physician at St. Vincent’s discharged Mallow under a plan that he consult with his primary care physician for medication management and attend an appointment with a social worker .There was no additional plan for further supervision.

A day after his release, Ashworth had returned to Connecticut. Mollow used the GPS location of her truck to follow her to a condominium complex in Wethersfield. where he shot and killed her and then himself, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that St. Vincent’s was negligent in releasing Mollow without proper control in spite of knowledge of the danger he presented to Ashworth. It claims negligence by the Branford Police Department for failing to take steps to warn or protect Ashworth. The estate, represented by the law firm Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, is seeking unspecified damages.

The Supreme Court decision restores counts to the estate’s suit that had been removed by the trial court as medical malpractice claims and returns the case for trial.

Justice Steven D. Ecker both concurred and dissented in a separate opinion.

A Hartford Healthcare spokesperson said, “Our heartfelt thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the family. We are unable to provide further comment on pending litigation.”

Access this article at its original source.