Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff's newborn son died shortly after Plaintiff gave birth. Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her son, later brought a medical malpractice action against her obstetrician and nurse midwife and their employer ("Hospital"). Because Hospital was sold to Defendants nine months after the events leading to the present action, Plaintiff also sued Defendants under a theory of successor liability. After reaching a settlement and executing two covenants not to sue, Plaintiff withdrew her claims against Hospital and its employees. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the covenant not to sue Hospital prevented Plaintiff from seeking to recover from Defendants. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, holding that Plaintiff’s execution of the covenant not to sue Hospital in perpetuity foreclosed, as a matter of law, her right of action against Hospital and against any subsequent purchaser of Hospital’s assets under the mere continuation theory of successor liability. View "Robbins v. Physicians for Women's Health, LLC" on Justia Law

The named plaintiff, Michele DiLeito, commenced this medical malpractice action against Defendants. The jury found Defendants liable and awarded $5,200,000 plus interest to the substitute plaintiff, LiDeito's bankruptcy trustee. The Supreme Court affirmed except with respect to the amount of interest awarded. The trustee subsequently filed a motion for postjudgment interest pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-3b. Thereafter, DiLieto was substituted as plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, determining at DiLieto had failed to demonstrate Defendants wrongfully detained money payable to her under the judgment. DiLieto appealed, arguing that the trial court should not have applied the wrongful detention standard of Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-3a in declining to award postjudgment interest under section 37-3b. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that although the trial court properly determined that the same standard applies to an award of interest under section 37-3a as an award for interest under the version of section 37-3b in effect before the 1997 amendment, the standard the court actually applied was incorrect, as, under both provisions, a plaintiff who obtains a judgment is entitled to interest when the trial court determines under its discretion that such an award would be fair and equitable. Remanded. View "DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought two separate actions alleging that Hazel Smart died as a result of a defective catheter used in her dialysis treatment at Greater Waterbury Gambro HealthCare. The trial court consolidated the two actions, which brought claims sounding in negligence, medical malpractice, loss of consortium, and products liability. During pretrial proceedings, the trial court imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiffs for failure to comply with a discovery order. Plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the trial court's discovery order was not an appealable final judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly dismissed the appeal, as the trial court's order did not constitute an appealable final judgment. View "Incardona v. Roer" on Justia Law

Decedent admitted herself to Hospital for treatment for major depression and personality disorder. At the time of her admission, Decedent was diagnosed with high suicide ideation and had previously attempted suicide. One week later, Decedent committed suicide at Hospital. Plaintiff, the executor of Decedent's estate, filed a medical malpractice action against Hospital and Decedent's treating psychiatrist. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The appellate court remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court improperly declined to the poll the jury to determine whether any of the jurors had read an article regarding the subject matter of the case published prior to trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the appellate court improperly determined that the trial judge abused his discretion in declining to poll the jury. View "Kervick v. Silver Hill Hosp." on Justia Law

Decedent commenced an action (first action) against Defendants, a hospital and two individuals, alleging that Defendants were negligent in failing to treat him for a lesion in his lung. Decedent died of cancer while the first action was pending. The trial court granted Defendants' motions to strike for failure to comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-190a. Six weeks later, Plaintiff, Decedent's surviving spouse, commenced the present action alleging the same causes of action alleged against Defendants in the first action and seeking damages for wrongful death and loss of consortium. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reversed based on res judicata, concluding that the first action was decided on its merits because a motion to strike is a judgment on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the appellate court incorrectly concluded the trial court should have granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata; but (2) the present action was time barred and was not saved by Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-592, the accidental failure of suit statute. View "Santorso v. Bristol Hosp." on Justia Law

Physician diagnosed and treated Patient for various liver and kidney ailments but failed to warn her of the latent driving impairment associated with her condition. After leaving Physician's office, Patient blacked out while operating her motor vehicle and struck Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought an action against Physician and his employer (collectively, Defendants) for professional negligence. The trial court found in favor of Defendants, finding that Physician owed no duty to Plaintiff to warn Patient of the driving risks associated with her medical conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, and in so doing, declined to extend a health care provider's duty through judicial modification, holding that the trial court properly found that Physician owed no duty to Plaintiff to advise or warn Patient of the latent driving impairment associated with her medical condition. View "Jarmie v. Troncale" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, an obstetrician and gynecologist, contending that Defendant's failure to advise her that she should have her ovaries removed due to a family history of cancer resulted in her developing ovarian cancer. After a jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that the trial court improperly permitted expert testimony and instructed the jury in a manner consistent with a claim of traditional medical negligence and asserting that Plaintiff's complaint necessarily sounded exclusively in informed consent rather than in medical negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the trial court's decisions were proper because Plaintiff's complaint properly alleged medical negligence. View "Downs v. Trias" on Justia Law

The named plaintiff (Plaintiff) in this case, through her parents and next friends, filed a medical malpractice action against, inter alia, state-run health facilities (State). The claims commissioner granted Plaintiff permission to sue the State after vacating an earlier decision dismissing Plaintiff's claim, and the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion to set aside the summary judgment rendered in favor of the State after the legislature amended Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-158 to authorize the commissioner to vacate a decision under certain conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and substantive authority to set aside its prior decision granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. View "Nelson v. Dettmer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Erik and Carrie Pin, brought a medical malpractice action against Defendants, orthopedic surgeon David Kramer and Danbury Orthopedic Associates, seeking, inter alia, compensatory damages for Kramer's negligence in his surgical treatment of a spinal tumor suffered by Erik. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The appellate court reversed, holding that a new trial was required because the trial court had failed to grant Plaintiffs' request for a curative instruction following remarks by Defendants' expert witness, during his direct examination testimony, concerning increased health care costs caused by defensive medicine practices arising from the proliferation of medical malpractice claims in Connecticut. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court court did not err in its judgment. View "Pin v. Kramer" on Justia Law

The substitute Plaintiff, the successor administrator of the estate of Decedent, brought a medical malpractice action against Defendants, Physician and Medical Center, claiming, inter alia, that Physician had failed adequately to warn Decedent of certain risks associated with the use of birth control pills and the symptoms of those risks. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Defendants and rendered judgment accordingly. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly determined that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury and correctly reversed the trial court's ruling granting a directed verdict in favor of Defendants. View "Curran v. Kroll" on Justia Law