Dallaire v. Hsu
130 Conn. App. 599
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Denis Dallaire, as administrator of Sandra Dallaire’s estate, sued Ven C. Hsu for medical malpractice alleging lethal opiate dosing caused death.
- Trial court entered judgment for Hsu; plaintiff appeals contending errors on tolerance finding, standard of care, causation, and expert witness weight.
- Decedent suffered Madelung’s disease with long history of chronic pain and extensive narcotic prescriptions prior to Hsu’s treatment.
- On July 20, 2005, Kloth reduced decedent’s prescriptions to methadone only; on October 27, 2005, decedent saw Hsu.
- Decedent provided Warner’s records but not Kloth’s, although Walgreens had Kloth’s complete records; Hsu treated as emergency and prescribed methadone, MS Contin, and Xanax.
- Death attributed to opiate toxicity; court determined decedent was opiate tolerant and that Hsu did not breach the standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was decedent opiate tolerant, affecting the standard of care? | Dallaire argues decedent was opiate naive, requiring cautious dosing. | Hsu argues decedent was opiate tolerant given long history of narcotics. | Opiate tolerance confirmed; standard of care not violated. |
| Did Hsu breach the standard of care by not consulting prior providers or obtaining pharmacy records? | Plaintiff asserts failure to obtain Kloth’s records and consult prior providers breached care. | Hsu relied on patient history and independent assessment, consistent with standard of care. | Court upheld no breach; independent assessment proper. |
| Was causation properly addressed given conflicting expert testimony on dosing and death? | Plaintiff’s expert causation opinions supported a breach leading to death. | Defendant’s experts opined dosing intended to treat severe pain; opposing opinions were not decisive. | Court did not need to decide causation since no breach found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital, 251 Conn. 790 (1999) (trial findings binding unless clearly erroneous)
- Schiavone v. Bank of America, N.A., 102 Conn. App. 301 (2007) (evidence credibility on appeal not retried)
- Carusillo v. Associated Women’s Health Specialists, P.C., 79 Conn. App. 649 (2003) (conflicting expert testimony weighs credibility to trial court)
- Kunst v. Vitale, 42 Conn. App. 528 (1996) (necessity of expert testimony to establish standard of care)
- Bay Hill Construction, Inc. v. Waterbury, 75 Conn. App. 832 (2003) (credibility/weight of expert testimony governs appeal review)
- Farrell v. Bass, 90 Conn. App. 804 (2005) (standard of care may not require physician consultation with other specialists)
- Kalams v. Giacchetto, 268 Conn. 244 (2004) (doctrine of causation in medical malpractice; 52-114 presumption not triggered here)
- Dimmock v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (2008) (gross negligence exception reduces need for expert testimony)
- Grondin v. Curi, 262 Conn. 637 (2003) (standard of care for specialists in pain management)
- Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610 (1997) (professional standard of care analysis in medical malpractice)