Serrano & Serrano, LLC - Connecticut Lawyers - Accidents, Divorce, Social Security Disability, Immigration, Bankruptcy - Hartford 860 236-9350 * Waterbury 203 729-6100 * Toll-Free 800 856-6400

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Earlington v. Anastasi (SC 18042, 18044) August 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  In a medical malpractice lawsuit against an obstetrician and hospital for a baby born with paralysis from nerve damage during labor, the jury awarded economic damages of $1,588,000 although plaintiff’s attorney asked for $1,020,117.  On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the jury’s award was not supported by the evidence because the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert’s did not support an award greater than the plaintiffs sought.  The Court ordered the plaintiffs to remit the difference or accept a new trial.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293cr161.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 194 (2009)

  For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Dias v. Grady (SC 18265) July 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Rockville

Synopsis:  To file a medical malpractice case, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a requires a good faith belief that grounds exist for the case.  The plaintiff must provide a written opinion from a similar health care provider that the defendant had breached the standard of care.  However, it is not necessary that the written opinion state that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  The plaintiff’s good faith belief regarding causation may be based on consultation with nonsimilar health care providers or on other reasonable grounds.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292cr91.pdf

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 350, 972 A.2d 715 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Costanzo v. Gray (AC 29228) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Danbury

Synopsis:  Patient sued orthopedic surgeon who was to perform a left side L4-L5 microdiscectomy but instead performed the surgery from the right side.  Surgeon admitted he had mistakenly written on the chart that the patient had complained of right side symptoms.  At trial, the doctor’s expert witness testified that the doctor had in fact performed a left microdiscectomy but had used a right side approach known as a contralateral approach.  The jury found that the doctor had not committed malpractice.  The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP147.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Kelly v. Univ. of Conn. Health Center (SC 17884) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  The statute of limitations period for negligence cases begins to run when the injury is first discovered or should have been discovered.  The harm complained of need not have reached its fullest manifestation in order for the limitation period to begin to run.  This is especially so with regard to discovering the presence of a foreign object in one’s body after undergoing surgery. Such a presence indicates such obvious medical malpractice as to be clear even to a lay person.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR25.pdf