206 Conn.App. 603
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Ronna‑Marie Guiliano sued Jefferson Radiology and Dr. William S. Poole for allegedly failing to timely diagnose left‑breast cancer after mammograms/ultrasounds from 2010–2013; malignancy was diagnosed by biopsy in March 2013 and treated with mastectomies and node dissection in July 2013.
- At a March 2019 jury trial plaintiff presented two expert witnesses: Dr. Linda Griska (breast imaging radiologist) who opined Poole failed to obtain additional/magnification views in Sept. 2012 and thus breached the standard of care; and Dr. Kenneth Leopold (treating radiation oncologist) who testified about treatment and consequences of delayed diagnosis.
- During Griska’s direct examination the defendants repeatedly objected to form; the court sustained several objections but later allowed Griska, on multiple occasions, to testify to the standard of care and that Poole breached it.
- The court limited the total time available for Leopold’s testimony (approximately 3 hours total that day, split between the parties); plaintiff did not object to the time limit at trial or identify any evidence she could not elicit due to the limit.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; plaintiff appealed claiming (1) erroneous sustainment of form objections that impeded her expert’s testimony, (2) abuse of discretion in imposing a time limit on Leopold’s testimony, and (3) a Connecticut constitutional right‑of‑access violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court sustained form objections to questions posed to expert Griska | Sustaining objections prevented eliciting critical expert testimony on standard of care and breach and aided a defense strategy to confuse counsel | Any errors were harmless because Griska later testified fully on standard of care and breach; no relevant evidence was excluded | Harmless error — plaintiff failed to show she was prevented from presenting relevant expert testimony; claim fails |
| Court imposed time limit on direct exam of treating expert Leopold | Time limit was an abuse of discretion that curtailed plaintiff’s case presentation | Plaintiff failed to preserve the claim (no objection at trial, no showing of what evidence was lost) | Unpreserved — appellate court declines review; no abuse established on the record |
| Time limit violated right of access to courts under Conn. Const. art. I, § 10 | Limitation was "draconian" and denied meaningful presentation of plaintiff’s case, implicating a fundamental right | Constitutional claim was raised for first time on appeal and inadequately briefed; no Golding analysis or substantive showing | Not reviewed — claim unpreserved and inadequately briefed (no Golding showing); thus abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings in civil cases)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modifies/applies Golding preservation analysis)
- Billboards Divinity, LLC v. Commissioner of Transportation, 133 Conn. App. 405 (preservation requirement; appellate review limited to issues raised at trial)
- Sturgeon v. Sturgeon, 114 Conn. App. 682 (preservation and appellate review principles regarding trial objections)