CT Supreme Court Orders New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case: Doctors Experts Inflammatory Statements Denied Plaintiffs a Fair Trial

Posted by Richard P. Hastings | May 08, 2012 | 0 Comments

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?

About the Author

Richard P. Hastings

Attorney Hastings concentrates his practice on personal injury and litigation. Devoted to helping those who have suffered some type of wrong, Richard P. Hastings concentrates his law practice on personal injury law.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Sample

Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Donec sed odio dui. Maecenas sed diam eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas.

Let Us Fight for You

Local Presence. Statewide Coverage.

When you choose Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP you will receive the one-on-one attention and individualized support that you deserve. Our Connecticut personal injury attorneys will not treat you as just another case number nor will we hand your case off to a paralegal.

Unlike other law firms, we will personally handle each legal aspect of your case, walking with you every step of the way. We aim to provide the highest quality representation possible. We have extensive experience and training in a variety of aspects of personal injury law. We obtain the knowledge and skill-set necessary to maximize your compensation.

440 Main Street
Suite 2

Ridgefield, CT 06877
203-438-7450
Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri: 08:30am - 05:00pm

Menu