Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., YALE-NEW
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
| Citation | 2 Conn.App. 103,476 A.2d 1074 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2384,YALE-NEW,2384 |
| Parties | Carol STURDIVANT v.HAVEN HOSPITAL et al. |
Page 1074
v.
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL et al.
Decided June 5, 1984.
Brenda C. Morrissey, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
Michael P. Del Sole, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).
Before DANNEHY, C.P.J., and TESTO and HULL, JJ.
Page 1075
HULL, Judge.
The plaintiff, Carol Sturdivant, in this medical malpractice case appeals 1 from the denial of a [2 Conn.App. 104] motion to set aside a directed jury verdict which had been rendered in favor of the defendants, Yale-New Haven Hospital and Paul A. Lucky, a physician. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in limiting her designated expert's testimony to the subject matter disclosed in her response to interrogatories and that the court's action, in effect, constituted a dismissal of her cause of action.
The circumstances surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. For the sake of brevity, therefore, those circumstances need not be discussed in this case.
In response to the defendants' interrogatories concerning expert testimony, the plaintiff informed the defendants on March 5, 1982, that she had neither retained an expert nor consulted any not intended to be called as a witness. The plaintiff first disclosed the identity of her expert, Marvin Garrell, a physician, during the jury selection process, although the expert had been consulted previously. The court ordered the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories concerning the expert testimony and required the plaintiff to allow the defendants an opportunity to depose the expert.
In her supplemental answers to the defendants' interrogatories, the plaintiff stated that the subject matter of Garrell's proposed testimony was the "standard of care and departures from the standard of care." On the basis of this answer, the defendants limited the scope of their inquiry at the deposition to the disclosed subject matter.
During the trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish that the defendant physician's treatment was improper by posing a hypothetical question to her designated expert. The court sustained the defendants' objection on the ground that it contained facts which were not in evidence. Rather than reframe the question, the [2 Conn.App. 105] plaintiff made an offer of proof. At that time, the court informed the parties that the expert would not be able to testify on the issue of causation because causation was not within the scope of the disclosed subject matter of the expert's proposed testimony.
The plaintiff concedes that without her expert's testimony on causation the court correctly rendered a directed verdict for the defendants. She claims, however, on appeal, that the court abused its discretion when it excluded her expert's testimony on causation.
The trial court made the following findings. On March 5, 1982, the plaintiff filed answers to interrogatories. The response to interrogatory number sixty-nine, which sought information relating to "any expert consulted by you or on your behalf ... who is expected to be called as a witness at trial," indicated that no expert had been retained to testify. To interrogatory number seventy, which related to experts consulted but not intended to be called as a witness, plaintiff also responded in the negative. It was not until after the case was set for trial and the jury selection process had commenced that the plaintiff's counsel disclosed the identity of her expert.
The court then ordered that interrogatories number sixty-nine and seventy be answered forthwith and that thereafter her expert be produced to be deposed by defense counsel who maintained that otherwise his position would be prejudiced by his inability to prepare his cross-examination and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimny v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., COOPER-JARRET
...here is the kind of "cat and mouse game" which we specifically discountenanced in Sturdivant Page 1246 v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 In Sturdivant, the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case disclosed the name and subject of the testimony of her medical ex......
-
Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 17036
...356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984); Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 782, 621 A.2d 267 In this case, the trial court found that the plaintiff's complaint......
-
Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 13839
...983, 986, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958); see Pool v. Bell, 209 Conn. 536, 541, 551 A.2d 1254 (1989); Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984); K. Sinclair, Federal Civil Practice (2d Ed.) §§ 9.03 through 9.10. Moreover, a liberal interpretation of discovery ......
-
Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co., s. 2835-2841
...possible exclusion of DeBenedictis' testimony Page 1380 rested in the trial court's discretion. Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 107, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984). Here, the court's decision to allow the testimony, after a deposition of the witness, adequately served to infor......
-
Zimny v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., COOPER-JARRET
...here is the kind of "cat and mouse game" which we specifically discountenanced in Sturdivant Page 1246 v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 In Sturdivant, the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case disclosed the name and subject of the testimony of her medical ex......
-
Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 17036
...356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984); Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 782, 621 A.2d 267 In this case, the trial court found that the plaintiff's complaint......
-
Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 13839
...983, 986, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958); see Pool v. Bell, 209 Conn. 536, 541, 551 A.2d 1254 (1989); Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984); K. Sinclair, Federal Civil Practice (2d Ed.) §§ 9.03 through 9.10. Moreover, a liberal interpretation of discovery ......
-
Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co., s. 2835-2841
...possible exclusion of DeBenedictis' testimony Page 1380 rested in the trial court's discretion. Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 107, 476 A.2d 1074 (1984). Here, the court's decision to allow the testimony, after a deposition of the witness, adequately served to infor......