Milliun v. New Milford Hospital
129 Conn. App. 81
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Medical malpractice claim alleging New Milford Hospital caused Leslie Milliun’s cognitive injuries during July 2002 respiratory event.
- Leslie, treated at Mayo Clinic in 2003 and 2005, had treating physicians whose records cited anoxic encephalopathy related to the 2002 event.
- Plaintiff disclosed Mayo Clinic treating physicians McEvoy and Josephs as experts on causation and damages in 2008.
- Defendant sought to depose these out-of-state treating physicians; Mayo Clinic policy impeded live deposition, prompting a plan for teleconference depositions.
- Court granted partial commission for out-of-state depositions; later, the court vacated commissions after Josephs’ deposition, precluding further McEvoy deposition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, ruling treating-physician records on causation were inadmissible; plaintiff appeals on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of treating physicians’ causation opinions in records | Milliun contends records contain admissible causation opinions under §52‑174(b). | New Milford Hospital argues records are hearsay and lack proper expert basis for causation. | Court erred; records retained admissible causation opinions under §52‑174(b). |
| Preclusion of depositions of McEvoy and Josephs | Preclusion denied plaintiff essential live testimony on causation. | Defendant claims lack of opportunity to cross-examine and burdensome depositions justify preclusion. | Abuse of discretion to preclude McEvoy deposition; depositions should be allowed and used to assess causation. |
| Extension of time to respond to summary judgment | Request for extension timely under Practice Book §17-45. | Court should deny extension to respond. | We do not reach this issue due to other reversible errors; extension denial not necessary to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789 (2008) (establishes standard for causation proof in medical malpractice)
- Poulin v. Yasner, 64 Conn.App. 730 (2001) (expert opinion required for causation with reliable basis)
- George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312 (1999) (exception allowing expert opinion based on patient statements; hearsay caveat)
- Rhode v. Milla, 287 Conn. 731 (2008) (cross-examination prerequisite for admissibility of §52-174(b) material; deposition rights)
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (1983) (discovery rules and necessity of information reasonably helpful to case)
- Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542 (1987) (requirement that expert opinions show reasonable medical probability)