Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845

Decedent Leeann Curran died June 8, 2002 from bilateral pulmonary emboli caused by deep vein thrombosis.
Plaintiff, successor administrator Ryan Curran, sued Dr. Sherry L. Kroll and the Medical Center of Northeast Connecticut, LLP for medical malpractice, including failure to warn of risks and signs of deep vein thrombosis from birth control pills.
May 6, 2002 visit: Kroll prescribed Desogen (and Apri, generic form) to treat menopausal symptoms; decedent reported feeling worse and was told to continue; no record of a follow‑up call in decedent’s file.
June 6–8, 2002: decedent experienced escalating leg pain, groin pain, and inability to breathe; she and family could not identify cause; care providers responded but she died from DVT leading to pulmonary emboli.
Evidence at trial included Kroll’s testimony about warnings given, conflicting deposition testimony, lost medical chart later reconstructed, and various inferences about what warnings were provided and understood by decedent.
Trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants; Appellate Court reversed, holding evidence could support a jury finding that Kroll failed to warn about leg pain as a sign of DVT; Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a failure-to-warn/informed-consent issue for leg-pain as a DVT sign?	Curran argues Kroll failed to warn about leg pain as a DVT symptom.	Kroll contends any warning was adequate and leg pain was not established as a required warning.	Yes; evidence could support failure to warn about leg pain as a DVT symptom.
Did the Appellate Court properly infer lack of warning from the evidence, not mere speculation?	Appellate Court correctly inferred possible failure to warn from trial evidence.	Appellate Court relied on speculation and unsupported inferences.	Appellate Court properly allowed reasonable inferences from evidence to present to a jury.
Was absence of documentation of warnings in the medical file properly considered as proof of no warning?	Documentation gaps could be reconciled with other affirmative evidence showing a warning was given.	No documentation implies no warning unless supported by direct testimony.	Not dispositive; other affirmative evidence supported the inference of a warning or its absence.
Does a telephone contact showing warning-related monitoring support the inference that warning would have prompted timely treatment if adequately given?	Phone call evidence could show decedent monitored symptoms and would have sought care if warned.	Evidence limited to monitoring is not sufficient to imply lack of warning.	Yes; evidence supports reasonable inference that warning would have prompted treatment.

Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523 (1999) (deference to jury function; standards for directed verdicts)
State v. Copas, 252 Conn. 318 (2000) (reasonable-inference standard for circumstantial evidence)
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480 (1995) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to plaintiff)
Boone v. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551 (2005) (treatment outcome does not alone raise presumption of lack of care)
Shortell v. Cavanagh, 300 Conn. 383 (2011) (lay standard of materiality for informed-consent claims)
Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282 (1983) (lay standard of disclosure for informed consent)
DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416 (2005) (plaintiff's prima facie case for directed verdict standard)
Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (2004) (evidence review with respect to directed verdicts)
Paige v. St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 250 Conn. 14 (1999) (evidentiary disbelief does not justify contrary inference)
O'Hara v. Hartford Oil Heating Co., 106 Conn. 468 (1927) (longstanding evidentiary principles)
Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry, Inc., 298 Conn. 816 (2010) (appellate court cannot decide on bases not raised)
Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556 (2007) (claims must be raised in trial court to be reviewed on appeal)
Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., 230 Conn. 95 (1994) (appellate review of trial claims)