Doyle v. Kamm
2012 WL 45471
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Doyle treated by Kamm for weight-loss related issues in 2004; subsequent ER visit in March 2005 where Doyle suffered a fatal heart attack.
- Plaintiff filed second amended complaint on April 9, 2009 alleging negligence by Kamm and New Milford Medical Group, LLC regarding care, monitoring, and treatment.
- Trial proceeded to a jury; after ten days of trial and deliberations, verdict favored defendants on May 6, 2009; plaintiff moved to set aside verdict, which the court denied.
- Court excluded Krasner’s metabolic syndrome testimony under Practice Book 2008 § 13-4(4); later concluded the exclusion was harmless error.
- Plaintiff’s counsel argued a deposition document (Plourde) could refresh recollection/impeach Podrid without authentication; court held authentication required, ruling appealed.
- Court’s ultimate ruling affirmed the judgment against Doyle on the two evidentiary issues and upheld the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether metabolic syndrome testimony was improperly excluded | Disclosure anticipated cardiac risk factors; metabolic syndrome within scope | Disclosure did not explicitly include metabolic syndrome | Exclusion erroneous but harmless |
| Whether authentication was required to refresh recollection/impeachment with Plourde deposition | Authentication not required for refreshing recollection | Authentication required for admissibility | Court erred in requiring authentication; record insufficient to show harm; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Szczycinska v. Acampora, 125 Conn. App. 474 (2010) (harmless error standard; evidentiary rulings require harm)
- McVerry v. Charash, 96 Conn. App. 589 (2006) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168 (2006) (disclosure content basis; basic elements necessary)
- Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (2010) (plenary review for legal/constitutional evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007) (plenary review when legal standard misapplied)
- Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558 (2006) (record deficiencies and need for offer of proof)
- Vasquez v. Rocco, 267 Conn. 59 (2003) (adequacy of appellate record for claims of error)