440 Main Street | Ridgefield, CT 06877

Connecticut Medical Malpractice Attorney – Investigating Malpractice

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

If you have been involved in some type of medical malpractice case where you have received a significant permanent injury or injuries in some hospital in Connecticut then you need to get the advice of an experienced Connecticut medical malpractice attorney at the earliest possible moment. There are many things that need to be done to properly investigate a potential Connecticut doctor malpractice, emergency room malpractice, hospital malpractice, physician malpractice or medical malpractice case. If you wait too long before getting the advice of an experienced Connecticut medical malpractice lawyer then you may compromise your case and or you might not be a position to proceed due to the amount of time that you have waited.

Connecticut hospital and medical malpractice cases can occur at any of the following hospitals: Backus, Bridgeport, Bristol, Charlotte Hungerford, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Danbury, Day Kimball, Gaylord, Greenwich, Griffin, Hartford, Hospital for Special Care, St. Raphel, Johnson Memorial, Lawrence and Memorial, Manchester Memorial, Middlesex, Midstate Medical Center, Milford, Mount Sinai, New Milford, Norwalk, Rehabilitation Hospital of Connecticut, Rockville General, St. Francis, St. Mary’s, Sharon, St. Vincent’s, Stamford, the Hospital of Central Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Waterbury, Wyndham, and Yale New Haven hospitals. if you have been injured in any of these hospitals or in any other Connecticut healthcare facility then you need to contact us right away.

One of the issues that will need to be addressed in any potential Connecticut medical malpractice case is whether the treating physician or medical provider breached the standard of care in the treatment that was rendered to the injured party. This process will generally involve getting the injured party’s medical records and then having them reviewed by a doctor in the same area of specialization as the allegedly offending doctor who is being accused of medical malpractice. There are very few cases when a Connecticut medical malpractice lawyer can review the facts of your case with you and advise you as to whether or not there is actionable malpractice. Generally, this is because the opinion of a medical professional will be needed in order to make that determination.

If you believe that you have been the victim of some type of malpractice involving a hospital, Dr., healthcare facility, nurse, nursing home, physician or other health-care provider then you need to contact us at the earliest possible moment. You can call our toll-free number at 888-842-8466 and speak with one of our experienced Connecticut attorneys right away. If it appears that you have a potentially viable Connecticut medical malpractice case, then we will schedule an appointment where we can review the facts of your case with you in detail, with an experienced Connecticut medical malpractice lawyer, to determine if this is a case that we might be in a position to attempt to assist you with. Do not wait until it is too late. Call today and get this very valuable information right away. There is no cost or obligation in getting this information.

CT Supreme Court Orders New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case: Doctor’s Expert’s Inflammatory Statements Denied Plaintiffs’ a Fair Trial

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

This week the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the case of Pin v. Kramer, agreed with the decision of the CT Appellate Court and ordered a new trial in a medical malpractice case. The reason for ordering a new trial is the result of the prejudicial remarks made by the defendant doctor’s medical expert who testified at trial that medical malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care by forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine and increase medical malpractice  insurance premiums from the proliferation of medical malpractice claims in CT.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging negligence in the physician’s surgical treatment of a spinal tumor suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs contended that, because of the doctor’s negligence, the plaintiff was required to undergo two additional spinal surgeries which caused him to suffer from unnecessary pain, emotional distress and increased physical limitations and risk of future back problems.

At trial, a major claim of malpractice was whether the standard of care required the surgeon to order additional radiological tests, such as X rays, CT scans or MRI scans, prior to performing the first surgery, in order to determine whether the tumor had changed since it was first detected.

The defendants’ medical expert, Todd Albert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that ‘‘the standard of care did not require additional radiology tests,’’ but then ‘‘explained why he would have ordered such tests had he been the treating physician. Dr. Albert explained: “Well, a few reasons. One, I am with residents, fellows, and medical students all the time. So, we are ordering a lot of tests on everything so they have the opportunity to read them. And you could say, oh, that’s wasteful, but that is part of being at a teaching institution. One. It is for teaching purposes as much as anything, for they have one more chance to look at just one more—they have another dot in their exposure.”

‘The second reason is much different than in this part of the country and this state. I live in the worst malpractice community in the world. And . . . we practice a lot of defensive medicine. So, we order way more tests than are necessary to protect ourselves. And that’s just a fact. And so we get acclimated to practicing like that.”

The plaintiffs, thereafter requested a mistrial. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ request. Thereafter the jury returned a verdict for the doctor and the appeals followed.

The CT Appellate Court concluded that the trial court’s ‘‘failure to issue a curative instruction in the face of Albert’s inflammatory and prejudicial testimony was an abuse of discretion that likely influenced the jury’s deliberations. Although the improper statements by Albert were not pervasive, they introduced a highly controversial and legally improper issue into the case.” The CT Supreme Court agreed stating  “We conclude that the plaintiffs were harmed and were deprived of their right to a fair trial.”

A new trial was then ordered. What do you think about the expert’s comments and the CT Supreme Court’s decision ordering a new trial?

Richard P. Hastings is a Connecticut personal injury lawyer at Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP, with offices throughout the state.  A graduate of Fordham Law School, he has been named a New England Super Lawyer and is the author of the books: “The Crash Course on Child Injury Claims”; “The Crash Course on Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut” and “The Crash Course on Motorcycle Accidents.”  He has also co-authored the best selling book “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing- What Your Insurance Company Doesn’t Want You to Know and Won’t Tell You Until It’s Too Late!” He can be reached at 1(888)CTLAW-00 or by visiting www.hcwlaw.com.