Mahoney v. Storch Smith
166 A.3d 778
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Newborn circumcision by Dr. Lori Storch Smith using a Mogen clamp resulted in partial amputation of the glans; the amputated portion was later reattached.
- Plaintiffs (Mahoneys) sued for medical malpractice; trial focused on expert testimony about standard of care for Mogen circumcisions.
- Defendants sought to show a ~2.5 minute silent Internet video demonstrating a Mogen circumcision; defendants’ expert (Dr. Siege) reviewed it and said it would assist the jury.
- Court watched the video outside the jury’s presence, admitted it as demonstrative evidence (not an exhibit), and allowed Dr. Siege to narrate it while the jury viewed it; jury did not have the video during deliberations.
- Jury returned a defense verdict; plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict/new trial, arguing disclosure violations, prejudice/confusion from the video, lack of a limiting instruction, and that the court discouraged playback of expert testimony during deliberations.
- Trial court denied the postverdict motion; on appeal the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, finding most contested arguments unpreserved or without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of demonstrative video violated expert disclosure rules | Mahoney: Video and related testimony were not disclosed per Practice Book §13-4/§13-5 | Defendants: Video was identified on exhibit list; expert reviewed it and could use demonstrative evidence | Not reviewed on merits because plaintiffs failed to raise that specific argument below (unpreserved) |
| Whether video was irrelevant, cumulative, prejudicial, or confusing | Mahoney: Video showed anesthesia/hemostat use not at issue and confused/prejudiced jury; plaintiffs lacked chance to respond | Defendants: Video clarified expert testimony; plaintiffs had exhibit list and could have sought pretrial review or rebuttal | Court rejected preserved prejudice/confusion claim as meritless; other aspects not reviewed as unpreserved |
| Whether court should have instructed jury that video was for demonstrative purposes only | Mahoney: Absence of limiting instruction warranted new trial | Defendants: Purpose of the video (demonstrative) was obvious; no contemporaneous objection at charging | Court upheld denial—purpose was apparent and plaintiffs failed to preserve instructional objection for appeal |
| Whether court discouraged jury from rehearing expert testimony during deliberations | Mahoney: Court discouraged compliance with Practice Book §16-27 and impeded playback request | Defendants: Court informed jury of practical limits, offered options, and ultimately was willing to comply | Claim unpreserved because plaintiffs did not object to the court’s handling at trial; appellate review declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (standard of review for denial of motion to set aside verdict)
- Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574 (trial court may set aside verdict for palpable error affecting outcome)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Comm’n, 130 Conn. App. 36 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- State v. McCall, 187 Conn. 73 (unpreserved claims are not addressed on appeal)
- Lewis v. Drew, 132 Conn. App. 306 (prerequisites for appellate review of instructional errors)
- Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Techs., Inc., 285 Conn. 716 (claims raised first on appeal are generally not reviewed)