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)

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)