195 Conn.App. 212
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Kenneth Barnes sued Connecticut Podiatry Group and Dr. Marc Daddio for 2011 medical malpractice, alleging failure to suspect vascular compromise and to refer to a vascular specialist, resulting in partial foot amputations.
- Barnes disclosed Dr. Jack Gorman (Pennsylvania podiatrist) as his expert for standard of care and causation; a scheduling order had required expert disclosures by Sept. 1, 2013.
- After discovery delays and counsel changes, Judge Robinson (Jan 13, 2016) allowed supplementation of Gorman’s opinions but—citing case-management concerns on the eve of trial—ordered Barnes precluded from disclosing any additional experts.
- Barnes sought reconsideration, later attempted to disclose Dr. Rakesh Shah as a causation expert; Judge Lager adhered to Judge Robinson’s Jan. 13 order and precluded Shah’s testimony.
- The court then precluded Gorman from testifying as to both the prevailing Connecticut standard of care (insufficient foundation that he knew CT practice) and causation (exceeded expertise; speculative), and granted defendants’ summary judgment for lack of necessary expert proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan. 13, 2016 order precluding disclosure of additional experts was improper (claimed to be a sanction under Practice Book §13-4(h)) | Jan. 13 order was a sanction of preclusion subject to §13-4(h); required hearing/findings not made; good cause existed to allow more experts | Order was a permissible case-management decision within the judge’s inherent docket-management authority | Court: order was a case-management decision (not a §13-4(h) sanction) and judge did not abuse discretion in precluding additional experts |
| Whether Judge Lager erred in adhering to Judge Robinson’s Jan. 13 order (including whether she improperly applied law-of-the-case) | Lager could revisit the order and should have allowed additional expert disclosure | Lager correctly declined to revisit an order entered by another judge and followed proper process for reargument | Court: Lager did not err; she properly adhered because reargument must be sought from the original judge and she gave appropriate reasons |
| Whether Dr. Gorman was qualified to testify as to the prevailing Connecticut standard of care | Gorman’s experience and national practice support that he knows the applicable standard; national standard governs podiatrists | Gorman practiced only in Pennsylvania, could not establish foundation that CT standard was same; his affidavits were conclusory | Court: Gorman met statutory minimum qualifications but lacked adequate factual foundation to know CT standard in 2011; standard-of-care opinion precluded |
| Whether Gorman could offer causation opinions linking defendants’ conduct to the amputations | Gorman could opine with reasonable medical probability that defendants’ failures caused the amputations based on his experience | Gorman repeatedly deferred to vascular surgeons; lacked foundation and expertise to rule out other causes; opinions speculative | Court: Gorman’s causation opinion exceeded his expertise and was speculative; precluded; without expert proof plaintiff could not establish prima facie malpractice case |
Key Cases Cited
- Procaccini v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, 175 Conn. App. 692 (medical-malpractice elements and usual requirement of expert testimony)
- Grondin v. Curi, 262 Conn. 637 (trial court must ensure expert knows prevailing local standard; §52-184c minimum qualifications do not replace gatekeeping)
- Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813 (inherent case-management authority of trial courts)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (requirements for discovery-sanction orders: clarity, violation, proportionality)
- Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital, 176 Conn. App. 39 (expert admissibility requires qualification and factual basis)
- Ward v. Ramsey, 146 Conn. App. 485 (principles governing causation and proximate cause in malpractice cases)