Weaver v. McKnight
134 Conn. App. 652
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Weaver and her estate sued Amdur and Thames Gynecologic Group for medical malpractice after the stillbirth of their fetus, alleging deviation from standard of care caused death.
- Two disclosed expert witnesses, Bottiglieri and Jelsema, were precluded from testifying on causation of the fetal death.
- Plaintiffs argued gestational diabetes and macrosomia related factors caused the stillbirth; defendants argued lack of qualified expertise to causally connect the death to alleged negligence.
- Autopsy reportedly showed no anatomic cause; Jelsema testified about gestational diabetes and stillbirth risk, but was not allowed to opine causation.
- The trial court then granted a directed verdict for the defense due to lack of proving causation by the defendants’ alleged breach.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the causation opinions of Bottiglieri and Jelsema.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion precluding causation testimony | Weaver argues both experts were qualified to opine on death causation. | Amdur contends neither expert had requisite expertise to determine fetal death causation. | No abuse; court properly precluded causation testimony. |
| Whether Jelsema was qualified to testify on cause of death | Jelsema, with obstetrics/maternal-fetal medicine background, could determine death cause. | Jelsema lacked pathology expertise and data foundation to causally link gestational diabetes to death. | Court did not abuse discretion; Jelsema’s qualifications insufficient for causation opinion. |
| Whether Bottiglieri was qualified to testify on cause of death | Bottiglieri could determine death cause despite absence of pathologist finding. | Bottiglieri’s qualifications did not meet the need to causally connect death to diabetes; lack of foundation. | Court did not abuse discretion; Bottiglieri’s causation opinion lacked proper foundation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Camel, 283 Conn. 475 (Conn. 2007) (expert testimony generally required in medical malpractice)
- Cavallaro v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59 (Conn. App. 2005) (expert testimony required for standard of care and causation)
- Amsden v. Fischer, 62 Conn. App. 323 (Conn. App. 2001) (expert testimony generally required; causation element)
- Poulin v. Yasner, 64 Conn. App. 730 (Conn. App. 2001) (causal connection must be more than conjecture; substantial factor test)
- Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (Conn. 2010) (ipse dixit; foundation required for expert opinion)
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 292 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2009) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony; qualified and helpful)
- Richmond v. Longo, 27 Conn. App. 30 (Conn. App. 1992) (support for deferring rulings on expert admissibility)
- Sherman v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. 2003) (overlapping specialties; qualification focus on matter)