Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford, Photo: Wangkun Jia/Shutterstock.com

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in 10 cases during the 2019-2020 sixth session, which runs from Feb. 20-27.

Here's a look at some of the most notable cases:

John Doe #2 v. Robert Rackliffe

In litigation that centers around medical malpractice and the alleged sexual abuse of seven patients by then-pediatrician Robert Rackliffe, the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide whether the statute of limitations bars certain claims.

Connecticut law allows plaintiffs to bring claims of childhood sexual assault up until the victim turns 51. But the rub in this case is that there are both negligence claims and sex abuse claims leveled against the now-deceased doctor. And a statute of limitation bars negligence claims after three years.

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment on all of the negligence claims. But plaintiffs countered that "their negligence claims were inextricably intertwined with their sexual abuse claims, and therefore the negligence claims were timely," according to the Supreme Court synopsis of the case.

Now, the state's high court must decide whether the trial court erred in declining to apply the statute of limitations contained the Connecticut General Statutes related to negligence claims.

The plaintiffs claimed they were harmed because Rackliffe allegedly performed digital rectal examinations during their annual physical checkups. Rackliffe died in 2015 while the cases against him were pending.

State of Connecticut v. Michael J. Marsala

At issue in Marsala is whether the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear the charge for a lesser criminal trespass offense for Michael Marsala, who was a panhandler in the parking lots of the Connecticut Post Mall.

Marsala was convicted of first-degree criminal trespass, but his attorney maintained the jury should have been allowed to choose between that charge and the lesser charge, which would have just been an infraction for simple trespass. Court records show Marsala served four months in jail for the offense. But an infraction would have meant no jail time.

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the lower court, stating that the case of Marsala, who was told panhandling in the mall parking lot was not permitted but did it anyway, didn't meet the four-prong test of State v. Whistnant. That case states that a defendant is entitled to an instruction of a lesser offense only if, among other things, there is some evidence to justify charging the lesser offense. The state says there was no such evidence.

Antonio Vitti v. City of Milford

The question in the workers' compensation case of Vitti is whether the former police officer is entitled to a permanent partial-disability award for losing his full heart—now compensated at 23%—following an organ transplant.

In 2010, while still a police officer, Vitti was diagnosed with giant cell myocarditis and underwent a heart transplant.

The trial commissioner of the Compensation Review Board issued a permanent partial-disability award to Vitti for a 23% loss of function of his transplanted heart, but rejected Vitti's claim that his native heart—and not his transplanted one—was the organ that should be considered when determining a workers' compensation award.

The state Supreme Court will decide whether Vitti is entitled to a higher award, or if the city is correct to  lower the amount based on a 23% loss of function of the transplanted heart.

Related stories:

Connecticut Supreme Court Set to Hear 9 Cases in January

Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear 10 Cases in December