141 Conn. App. 91
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Dorreman file August 2008 action, later a two-count revised complaint (Jan 8, 2009).
- Count I: Joseph Dorreman alleges negligent treatment for a ruptured knee tendon in June 2006, second rupture after surgery, and inadequate further surgery; December 2006 fall causing left-knee surgery.
- Count II: Patricia Dorreman asserts loss of consortium.
- Defendant Johnson moves to preclude expert testimony (May 25, 2011) and for summary judgment (same date); court grants both (June 1 and June 23, 2011).
- Scheduling order required expert disclosure by Aug 1, 2010; plaintiffs disclosed no experts; defense relied on lack of expert testimony to defeat prima facie medical malpractice claim.
- Court affirmed, holding remedies appropriate given failure to disclose experts and absence of sufficient expert evidence to prove standard of care, deviation, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preclusion of expert testimony was proper | Dorreman argues rule unclear, harsh sanction, and disclosure occurred. | Johnson argues no timely disclosure and prejudice to defense. | Preclusion proper; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Plaintiffs contend disclosed materials show negligence via records and defendant's deposition. | Lack of expert testimony prevents proving standard of care, deviation, causation. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue of material fact without expert testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- McVerry v. Charash, 96 Conn. App. 589 (Conn. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court rulings on sanctions)
- Gold v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 262 Conn. 248 (Conn. 2002) (burden to present expert testimony in medical malpractice)
- Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurological Associates, P.C., 139 Conn. App. 778 (Conn. App. 2012) (plenary standard of review for summary judgment in medical malpractice)