232 Conn.App. 143
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Nexhmije Zhuleku and her husband sued Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates (NVRA), two radiology staff (Gersten and Perugini), and the estate of Perugini for alleged medical malpractice stemming from post-operative care following a 2016 laser vein ablation procedure.
- Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to properly respond to Zhuleku's reported post-procedure symptoms, resulting in her hospitalization and prolonged recovery.
- The operative complaint focused on negligence for failure to provide appropriate post-operative care; more than five years after the events, during jury selection, plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add new counts of negligence per se based on statutory and regulatory violations.
- The court sustained defendants' objection to the late amendment, finding that the new claims would unfairly prejudice the defense and stretch beyond the scope of the evidence already prepared for trial.
- The jury ultimately found for the defendants after trial and the court granted a directed verdict as to Perugini's estate; the plaintiffs appealed, focusing on the denial of their amended complaint and alleged errors in jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to file amended revised complaint during jury selection | Amendment should be allowed; variances from original complaint were immaterial, defendants not misled | Amendment added new and distinct claims at late stage, would cause unfair prejudice, require new discovery | Denied; trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining objection to late amendment |
| Jury charge regarding standard of care proven through defendant’s testimony | Jury should be instructed that defendant’s testimony can prove standard of care and its breach | No error; standard of care requires expert testimony, instruction as given was proper | Denied; even if error, plaintiffs failed to adequately show harm from omission |
| Request for consciousness of liability instruction to jury | Failure to produce Perugini for deposition was concealment, warranting instruction | No evidence of intentional avoidance; Perugini’s illness and death explained absence | Denied; no evidence supported inference of consciousness of liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant Street, LLC v. Bridgeport, 199 Conn. App. 600 (standard for amending complaints and discretion of trial court)
- Rodriguez v. Hartford, 224 Conn. App. 314 (factors for allowing amendments, including delay and prejudice)
- Booth v. Park Terrace II Mutual Housing Ltd. Partnership, 217 Conn. App. 398 (prejudice and procedural fairness in allowing amendments)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726 (burden to show harm from alleged instructional error)
- Perdikis v. Klarsfeld , 219 Conn. App. 343 (jury instructions unsupported by evidence are error)
- Martin v. Olson, 226 Conn. App. 392 (review and standard for instructional error)