PIN v. Kramer, 304 Conn. 674

Plaintiffs Erik M. Pin and Carrie L. Pin sued Dr. David L. Kramer and Danbury Orthopedic Associates for medical negligence arising from spinal tumor surgery.
Plaintiffs contended Kramer’s negligence required two additional spinal surgeries, causing pain, distress, and increased risk of future problems.
A central issue was whether the standard of care required preoperative and postoperative radiology tests to monitor tumor growth and recovery.
On trial, defense expert Todd Albert testified that the standard of care did not require additional radiology tests, but he explained why he would order them in practice.
Albert referenced teaching environment and defensive medicine in Connecticut, stating there is more testing to protect against liability.
Plaintiffs requested a mistrial or curative instruction; the trial court denied, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
Appellate Court reversed, finding the failure to give a curative instruction likely affected deliberations and remanded for a new trial; the Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err in denying a curative instruction?	Pin	Kramer	No error; affirm

Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch, 293 Conn. 774 (2009) (admonitions on curative instructions and prejudice considerations)