The petition involved the dentist’s use of laser therapy. Based upon a detailed written response to the allegations, which included analysis on the use of laser therapy in dentistry, the DPH dismissed the petition in its entirety. Principal Laura Waltman represented the dentist. (January, 2024)

The plaintiff alleged that the facility’s care caused him to require an above-the-knee amputation. DL successfully persuaded the trial court that the plaintiff’s expert testimony was not sufficient on the issue of causation, requiring the entry of summary judgment. Principal Thomas Plumridge represented the defendant. (December, 2023)

The plaintiff, a police detective, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of age, after he was twice passed over for promotion in favor of younger detectives, despite earning higher test scores. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City of Meriden, finding that the plaintiff failed to set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The Appellate Court affirmed, Femia v. City of Meriden, 223 Conn. App. 1 (2023). On appeal, the case was selected for presentation at Norwich Free Academy as part of the Appellate Court’s “On Circuit” program, which provides students, educators, and the public with a greater understanding of the appellate process. Principal Stuart Johnson represented the defendant. (December, 2023)

The patient alleged that the dentist failed to provide proper dental care over an extended course of treatment. The written response required detailed analysis of the treatment provided at each visit, and all communication with the patient before and after each visit. Based upon the written response, the DPH dismissed the petition in its entirety. Principal Laura Waltman represented the dentist. (October, 2023)

The plaintiff alleged negligent post-operative care following cataract and glaucoma surgery, resulting in retinal detachment and permanent loss of left eye vision. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding no breach of the standard of care. Principal Janine Leary represented the defendant. (October, 2023)

The plaintiff alleged the wrongful death of a patient who died as the result of hemorrhagic complications from treatment for an aortic occlusion. After a two-week trial, in which the decedent’s treating surgeon served as the plaintiff’s causation expert, jurors were asked to award up to $1.9 million. The jury returned with a defense verdict in 40 minutes, finding no breach of the standard of care. Principal Donna Zito represented the defendant. (October, 2023)

The petition involved the medical treatment provided to a patient after he tested positive for COVID-19. The written response required research and analysis of the standard of care applicable to health care providers treating patients with COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic. Based upon the written response, the DPH dismissed the petition in its entirety. Principal Laura Waltman represented the physician and practice group. (September, 2023)

In a wrongful death case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiff alleged the death of a patient following a stroke. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent’s hypertension was improperly managed, but after deposing the plaintiff’s experts, the plaintiff elected to withdraw the claims against the defendants without payment. Principal Thomas Lyons represented the defendants. (August, 2023)

The patient alleged that the dentist failed to acknowledge, address and prepare a treatment plan for her chief complaints, and also, that the dentist caused damage to her mouth while obtaining bitewing radiographs. Based upon a detailed written response to the allegations, the DPH dismissed the petition in its entirety. Principal Laura Waltman represented the dentist. (August, 2023)

The plaintiff alleged negligence of the urgent care provider in prescribing prednisone for his intractable cough, claiming the drug was not indicated, the dose was too high, and the dose resulted in atrial fibrillation, requiring cardioversion, fear of recurrence and fear of death. After a full trial on the merits, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding no breach of the standard of care. Principal Donna Zito represented the defendant. (July, 2023)