The plaintiffs alleged wrongful death resulting from the defendant radiologist’s alleged failure to directly call the patient’s surgeon to report an unexpected density on a postoperative chest x-ray. Following hospital protocol, the radiologist alerted the attending RN on the floor, circled the density on imaging, and relied upon the hospital to fax the report to the surgeon and incorporate the report into the patient’s chart. The radiologist’s recommendation was ignored, and the patient was later diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer. After initial dismissal based upon the statute of repose, the case was tried on the merits, and the jury returned with a verdict for the radiologist and radiology practice group. Principal Donna Zito represented the defendants (November, 2024).
The plaintiff’s decedent, a man in his 30’s, was in a public park when he suddenly collapsed. The City’s EMS responded to the scene and transported the decedent to the hospital. The plaintiff sued several defendants. Against EMS, the plaintiff alleged failure to obtain sufficient information regarding the severity of the decedent’s condition; delayed response to the scene; and delayed transport of the decedent to the hospital. The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a. The Court agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiff re-filed and after two years of extensive discovery, the plaintiff withdrew the case against EMS without payment. Principal Thomas Lyons represented EMS. (October, 2024)
The plaintiff’s decedent had been admitted to a rehabilitation facility with a resolving small bowel obstruction. The plaintiff alleged that during the admission, the decedent’s attending internist failed to appreciate, diagnose and treat a small bowel obstruction. After four-plus years of litigation, and two months prior to trial, the plaintiff disclosed a gastroenterologist to testify against the internist. The defendant moved to preclude the expert based upon the untimeliness of the disclosure and the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the expert testimonial requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184c. After oral argument, the trial court agreed and granted the defendant’s Motion to Preclude from the bench. Without an expert, the plaintiff’s only options were to withdraw the case against the internist’s practice group without payment or pursue an appeal of the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff opted to withdraw the case without payment. Principal Nancy DeRose and Associate Ethan Suraci represented the practice group. (October, 2024)
The plaintiff alleged that multiple health care providers were negligent in the care and treatment provided to the plaintiff when she presented to the hospital during pregnancy. In support of the Complaint, the plaintiff attached the written opinion letter of a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist. On behalf of the radiologist, DL moved to dismiss on the basis that the written opinion letter was not authored by a similar health care provider pursuant to the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a. The trial court agreed. Significantly, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a written opinion letter sufficient as to one provider is sufficient as to all providers. The trial court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the claim against the radiologist did not require a written opinion letter. Principal Nancy DeRose and Associate Rafeena Bacchus Lee represented the radiologist. (June, 2024)
The plaintiffs alleged a failure to provide appropriate care and treatment to a patient who presented to an urgent care center with a headache. Following discharge, the patient was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage as a result of a ruptured aneurysm. After targeted agency arguments, motion practice, and thorough discovery, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the action against the DL defendants. Principal Nancy DeRose and Associate Marc Bernatchez represented the defendants. (May, 2024)
The plaintiff alleged that a neuroradiologist employed by the radiology practice group underreported the degree of carotid stenosis on a CT angiogram. The treating vascular surgeon relied upon the alleged misreading and recommended medical, rather than surgical, treatment of the plaintiff’s carotid stenosis. The plaintiff alleged that as a result, he suffered a stroke resulting in significant impairments that would not have occurred if endarterectomy surgery had been performed. After a full trial on the merits, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the radiology practice group. Principals Joyce Lagnese and Aggie Cahill represented the practice group, and were assisted at trial by Principal Laura Waltman and Associate Ethan Suraci. (March, 2024)
The plaintiff filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against an APRN, alleging deliberate indifference in medical treatment of diabetes in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and related state-law claims. DL filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the APRN had provided regular and appropriate care for the plaintiff’s diabetes. The District Court agreed and granted the Motion for Summary Judgment as to all the claims against the APRN. Principal Thomas Plumridge represented the APRN. (March, 2024)
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered total disability and inability to work following an endovenous ablation procedure with post-operative complication of abscess. After a full trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant physician and practice group, concluding that the interventional radiologist’s treatment was in compliance with the standard of care. A verdict was directed to the co-defendant radiology technologist at the close of the plaintiff’s case based upon preclusion of the plaintiff’s expert. Principal Sally Hagerty and Associate Joseph Walsh represented the defendants. (February, 2024)
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered permanent injury and disability as a result of negligent care and treatment received after a fall, including the hospital’s alleged failure to provide her with the appropriate brace for a spinal injury. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s action, finding that she had alleged a claim for medical malpractice, but had failed to comply with the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a in that she failed to attach a written opinion from a similar health care provider, indicating the appearance of evidence of medical negligence. The Appellate Court then granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal. Principals Neil Danaher, Stuart Johnson, and April Rosenkrantz represented the hospital. (January, 2024)
The plaintiff alleged a failure to provide appropriate care and treatment to a patient who presented to the hospital and was ultimately diagnosed with pneumococcal meningitis. Following the plaintiff’s failure to disclose an expert to testify that the pulmonary critical care specialist deviated from the standard of care and discussions amongst counsel, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the action against the DL defendants. Principals Sally Hagerty and April Rosenkrantz represented the defendants. (January, 2024)