Plaintiff alleged hospitalist negligently administered medication resulting in her husband’s death. The case involved issues of oncology, infectious disease, cardiology, critical care and pharmacology. Following extensive workup, establishing that the hospitalist did not breach the standard of care and that nothing we did caused the husband’s demise, the plaintiff withdrew the claim without payment. Neil Danaher and Laura Waltman represented the hospital. (2019)
The plaintiff alleged that there was inappropriate prenatal care and follow up resulting in a still birth. The jury found in favor of the defendants and determined that the care and treatment was appropriate and that none of the providers deviated from the standard of care. Neil Danaher and Aggie Cahill represented the defendants. (2019)
Plaintiffs withdrew a wrongful death case against a gastroenterologist following completion of physician’s deposition with no payment made on behalf of any medical provider. Aggie Cahill represented the defendants. (2019)
Plaintiff initiated action against two board certified hospitalists and their group by the filing of a complaint together with an opinion letter from a purported similar health care provider pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-190a. While authors of §52-190a letters are anonymous, based on certain information contained in the opinion letter, DL was able to actually identify the author of the letter. DL also discovered that the author was not board certified at the time that she wrote the letter. Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge granted our motion to dismiss on the grounds that the letter had not been authored by a similar health care provider. Stuart Johnson and Andrew Wildstein represented the defendants. (2018)
Plaintiff claimed that an internist had failed to identify signs and symptoms indicative of a developing spinal abscess, and that as a result the plaintiff had suffered permanent neurologic deficits. The plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged deviations from the standard of care by the internist, and the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The Superior Court granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish by way of expert testimony, the requisite causal connection. The defendant was represented by Andrew Wildstein. (2018)
The Superior Court granted DL’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Court of the Complaint against an attorney and his law firm alleging violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§42-110a at seq. The Court held that CUTPA covers only the entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of the profession of law. “The non-commercial aspects of lawyering – that is, the representation of the client in a legal capacity – should be excluded for public policy reasons.” Because the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim clearly and unequivocally involved the representational and not the entrepreneurial aspects of the defendant’s legal practice, summary judgment was appropriate. Stuart Johnson represented the defendants.
Plaintiff failed to identify appropriate expert witnesses and to diligently prosecute a case against a geriatrician who had provided care and treatment to a patient in a nursing/rehabilitation facility. Immediately following argument of a Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff withdrew the case against the geriatrician. Andrew Wildstein represented the defendant. (2018)
The plaintiff alleged a traumatic brain injury related to an alleged delay in diagnosis of a shunt malfunction. The plaintiff presented to the ER for altered mental status and hydrocephalus. In the absence of any baseline films, an early CT was interpreted as consistent with chronic hydrocephalus. A subsequent MRI two days later suggested an acute hydrocephalus. The plaintiff’s condition deteriorated and was subsequently diagnosed with a probable shunt malfunction. The jury found that the physician did not deviate from the prevailing standard of care for neuroradiologists. Bob Kiley represented the defendant.
A Superior Court judge granted motions to dismiss on the grounds that the opinion letter attached to the complaint was legally insufficient under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-190a because it did not satisfy the “detailed basis” requirement of the statute as to the physician and because it was not written by a “similar health care provider” as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-184c as to the nurse. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint to cure the defects because the request was not made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Bob Kiley and Tom Plumridge represented the defendants. (2018)
The plaintiff claimed that a neurosurgeon failed to identify and recognize the alleged medial placement of a pedicle screw in a lumbar procedure, resulting in a foot drop, pain, loss of sensation and weakness in the lower extremity. The plaintiff failed to disclose an expert to support the allegations of negligence. The Court granted our motion for summary judgement on behalf of the neurosurgeon. Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2018)