Case Results


On July 18, 2017, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s post verdict motion to set aside the verdict and for new trial, finding that the trial court (Rush, J.T.R.) correctly ruled that the defendants’ use of a video during the direct examination of defendant’s expert was proper as demonstrative evidence and that the plaintiff had not properly preserved his objections to its use. Mahoney v. Smith, 174 Conn. App. 639. (2017)

Plaintiff alleged negligent failure to diagnose and treat pneumonia resulted in the death of plaintiff’s decedent and that the hospital was liable based on theories of actual and apparent agency. Following the filing of a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff withdrew the claims against the hospital. Neil Danaher and Laura Waltman represented the hospital. (2017)

Plaintiff claimed that defendant neurosurgeon failed to appropriately recognize the migration of lumbar spine hardware following lumbar fusion surgery at the L4-L5 level. The plaintiff further claimed that, as a consequence, he suffered permanent nerve damage which required use of a wheelchair. The Arbitrator found that the neurosurgeon did not breach the standard of care. Joyce Lagnese and Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2016)

On April 28, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment on a bystander emotional distress claim, finding that the trial court (Tierney, J. T. R.) correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered severe and debilitating emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence. Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass’n, 316 Conn. 558 (2015). The court agreed with our argument that “a bystander cause of action will lie only when the bystander’s psychological injury were both severe and debilitating, such that they warrant a psychiatric diagnosis or otherwise substantially impair the bystander’s ability the cope with life’s daily routines and demands.” Id. at 585. The court further agreed with our argument that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient “to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs suffered severe and debilitating mental distress such that they were unable to cope with the challenges of daily life.” Id. at 599. Joyce Lagnese and Jake Kocienda represented the defendants.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant colorectal surgeon failed to appropriately identify and treat an anastomotic leak created during surgery to address diverticulitis. The plaintiff further claimed to have suffered permanent nerve injury and debilitating back pain as a result of the leak. The arbitrator found in favor of the surgeon and concluded that the surgeon complied with the standard of care in all respects. Andrew Wildstein represented the defendant. (2015)

Plaintiff alleged that the hospital transport team failed to intubate appropriately a patent who had decompensated during transfer to another hospital, resulting in severe brain damage. After a seven (7) week trial involving experts in pediatric neurology, pediatric neuroradiology, pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric nursing and transport, and life care planning, the jury concluded that the hospital had not breached the standard of care. Neil Danaher and Ed Mayer represented the defendant. (2015)

On September 24, 2013, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the grant of the physician’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the trial court (Vacchelli, J.) correctly concluded that the privacy regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (”HIPAA”) did not preempt the common law defense of waiver of confidentiality and that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff, himself, had waived his right to confidentiality of his medical records. Hopkins v. Balachandran, 146 Conn. App. 44. (2013)

Plaintiff’s estate alleged that the defendant otolaryngologists/ENTs failed to interpret correctly oral biopsy results of decedent’s oral lesion. Plaintiff further claimed that the lesion was a squamous cell carcinoma which went undiagnosed, metastasized, and caused patient’s death. The jury found in favor of the defendants, concluding that they did not deviate from the standard of care. Joyce Lagnese and Ed Mayer represented the defendants. (2013)

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant vascular surgeon improperly performed an atherectomy procedure for vasculopathy/claudication of the lower extremity. The plaintiff claimed that the procedure was contraindicated under the circumstances. The plaintiff suffered a complication after the procedure and later an above-the-knee amputation. The jury found that the physician did not deviate from the prevailing standard of care for vascular surgeons. Bob Kiley represented the defendant. (2013)

The plaintiff alleged that a pediatrician failed to refer nine (9) month old baby to a pediatric ophthalmologist resulting in delayed diagnosis of a right eye retinoblastoma. The patient later underwent enucleation of the right eye. The patient claimed that if a referral had been made, the patient’s right eye and part of his right eye vision could have been saved. The jury found in favor of the defendant, concluding that the physician did not deviate from the prevailing standard of care for pediatricians. Neil Danaher and Edward Mayer represented the defendants. (2012)