Plaintiff alleged that defendant hospital failed to assess appropriately a patient and institute a psychiatric hold. Plaintiff further alleged that the hospital negligently discharged the patient who went on to commit suicide. The Arbitrator concluded that the hospital complied with the standard of care in assessing and treating the patient. Neil Danaher and Ed Mayer represented the hospital. (2018)
Plaintiff claimed the defendant anesthesiologist failed to appropriately intubate and anesthetize the patient who underwent general anesthesia for foot procedure. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injury to her cervical spine, phrenic nerve and right hemi-diaphragm paralysis. The Arbitrator found in favor of the anesthesiologist. Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2018)
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-190a, a Superior Court judge granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to attach to the complaint a sufficient written opinion of a “similar health care provider.” Because the count at issue did not assert that the hospital staff was board certified or held themselves out as specialists, the author of the opinion letter was required to meet the requirements of §52-184c(b) for a “similar health care provider.” The letter failed to comply with the requirement that the author is trained and experienced in the same discipline or practice and such training and experience was the result of active involvement in the practice or teaching or medicine within the five year period before the incident giving rise to the claim. Neil Danaher and Tom Plumridge represented the hospital. (2018)
On December 18, 2018, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the grant of the psychologist’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the trial court (Elgo, J.) correctly concluded that allegedly defamatory statements made by psychologist in connection with post-marriage dissolution proceedings were part a judicial function and, thus, the statements were protected by absolute immunity. Ravalese v. Lertora, 18 Conn. App. 722 (2018). The Court determined that “it is clear from the facts set forth in the defendant’s affidavit that the purpose of her report was to aid the guardian ad litem and the court in the Ravelese’ continuing custody matter. . . .” Id. at 732.
On May 15, 2018, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the grant of the hospital’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the trial court (Shapiro, J.) correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of §52-190a(a) because the opinion letter attached to the plaintiff’s complaint did not set forth the professional qualifications of the author and was thus legally insufficient. Ugalde v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 182 Conn. App. 1 (2018). The Appellate Court also affirmed Judge Shapiro’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her complaint to add to the opinion letter the author’s professional qualifications because it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Sally Hagerty and Ilyssa Kelson represented the defendant hospital.
Plaintiffs withdrew a wrongful death claim against a pediatric nephrologist following the completion of the deposition of the plaintiff with no payment being made on any providers’ behalf. Aggie Cahill represented the defendants. (2018)
On November 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of a Motion to Dismiss, finding that the trial court (Underhill, J.) correctly concluded that the plaintiff had failed to commence her action within the applicable statute of limitations and that the statute was not extended by the fraudulent concealment doctrine nor by the Connecticut’s accidental failure of suit statute, Conn, Gen. Stat. §52-592(a). Hodges v. Glenholme School, 713 Fed. Appx. 49 (2d Cir. 2017). Jake Kocienda represented the defendants.
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.) granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The plaintiff’s claim arose out of his disagreement with a Connecticut Superior Court’s decision concerning his visitation rights. The Rooker Feldman doctrine prevents federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction to reconsider state court decisions. Furthermore, Judge Bryant held that the domestic relations doctrine also bars the court from evaluating the plaintiff’s custody and visitation claims. The domestic relations doctrine divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees. Jake Kocienda represents one of the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed the decision to the Second Circuit.
An elderly man suffered a fall at home and struck his head. He was evaluated by his primary care physician and found to be alert, oriented with no focal neurologic changes. Twelve days after evaluation by the defendant, the patient acutely decompensated and became comatose. He was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma and died from complications related to increased cranial pressure. The plaintiff claimed that the physician was negligent for failing to order a CT scan at the initial post-fall office visit. The jury found that the physician did not deviate from the prevailing standard of care. Joyce Lagnese and Bob Kiley represented the defendant. (2017)
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant ob-gyn failed to properly diagnose the perineal laceration she suffered after delivery, leading to improper treatment and subsequent permanent nerve damage and fecal incontinence. The plaintiff’s husband also asserted a loss of consortium claim. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to return a combined verdict of between $13-20 million. After a 2 week trial the jury rendered a defense verdict. The defendant ob-gyn and her group were represented by Karen Noble and Nancy DeRose. (2017)