Hayes v. Manchester Memorial Hosp., No. 12453

• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: FOTI
• Citation: 38 Conn.App. 471,661 A.2d 123
• Parties: Helen HAYES v. MANCHESTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.
• Decision Date: 18 July 1995
• Docket Number: No. 12453

Page 123

661 A.2d 123 38 Conn.App. 471 Helen HAYES
v.
MANCHESTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al. No. 12453. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued March 22, 1995.
Decided July 18, 1995.

Page 124

Louis W. Flynn, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was William J. Bumster, Wethersfield, for appellant (plaintiff).

Lois Tanzer and Louis B. Blumenfeld, with whom, on the brief, was Lorinda S. Coon, Hartford, for appellees (defendants).

Before FOTI, LAVERY and HEIMAN, JJ.

FOTI, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered, after jury trial, in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly [38 Conn.App. 472] 1) limited cross-examination of the defendants' expert witness and (2) denied her challenge of a juror for cause. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. The plaintiff suffered a fall in her home that required her to be transported by ambulance to the emergency room at the defendant Manchester Memorial Hospital. The defendant Wells Jacobson was the orthopedic physician assigned to treat the plaintiff. X rays taken of the plaintiff's left leg showed a comminuted fracture of the left femur. Jacobson performed surgery to set the fracture. One day prior to the plaintiff's scheduled discharge from the hospital, X rays of her left hip were taken and showed a fracture of the femoral neck. A second surgical procedure was performed to set this fracture.

Page 125

The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice action against the defendants, alleging a failure to read and interpret her X rays properly and a failure to take necessary X rays. One of the issues at trial related to the adequacy of hip X rays taken at the time of the plaintiff's admission. Jacobson and the defendants' expert witness, Alan Goodman, an orthopedist, testified to the adequacy of the hip X rays under the circumstances in this case. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on December 17, 1992. The plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict was denied by the trial court.

The plaintiff first argues that the trial court improperly limited the cross-examination of Goodman, the expert witness called by the defendants to testify as to the proper standard of care. The trial court refused to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine Goodman, for purposes of attacking his credibility, as to a lawsuit brought against him. That lawsuit alleged the same or similar claims of medical negligence against Goodman [38 Conn.App. 473] as those present here. The trial court, while allowing the complaint against Goodman to be marked for identification, and recognizing that the plaintiff's claim of relevance went to both motive and bias rather than professional competence, ruled that the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed its probative value. The court determined that the allegations in the two lawsuits were superficially similar, ¹ but noted that sufficient opportunity existed "in the ordinary manner, of also exploring his motive as well as his bias ... in connection with his activity on behalf of defendants."

The plaintiff contends that the jury should have been informed of the similar lawsuit against Goodman because this information would have been relevant in determining Goodman's credibility, bias and motive. The lawsuit against Goodman involved the reading and ordering of X rays. That suit was pending at the time Goodman was deposed as an expert witness in this case, but it was settled prior to Goodman's giving testimony. ² The plaintiff contends that this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate Goodman's motive to testify as he did. In order to remain consistent and not to admit that he had failed to conform to the applicable standard of care, he had to conclude that the defendant did not deviate from the standard of care in the...