Wallace v. Saint Francis Hosp. and Medical Center
Decision Date | 11 February 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15468,15468 |
Citation | 688 A.2d 352,44 Conn.App. 257 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Rebecca WALLACE, Administratrix (Estate of George Wallace), v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER. |
John F. Wynne, Jr., New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Louis B. Blumenthal, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene A. Cooney and Sharone G. Kornman, Chicago, IL, for appellee (defendant).
Before LAVERY, SPEAR and STOUGHTON, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered following the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in a medical malpractice action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff administratrix of the decedent's estate, in a one count amended complaint, alleged that the defendant Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center negligently caused the plaintiff's decedent to lose his chance for successful treatment. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant because the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's conduct led or contributed to the decedent's death. The two issues that the plaintiff raises in this appeal are whether the trial court (1) improperly granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict when there was sufficient evidence to allow the case to go to the jury and (2) abused its discretion when it precluded the plaintiff's expert from testifying as to the causal connection between the defendant's alleged malpractice and the plaintiff's decedent's injury.
The record reflects the following facts. On July 7, 1990, at approximately 9:44 p.m., the plaintiff's decedent, George Wallace, arrived at the defendant's emergency room with complaints of stomach pain. Wallace had been chronically ill for many years and was previously discharged from the defendant hospital on July 6, 1990, when he had undergone surgery for the removal of a Tenckhoff catheter.
When Wallace arrived at the emergency room on the night of July 7, 1990, he was assessed by a nurse, who noted that he had abnormal vital signs, and was put in an examining room so that a physician could examine him. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Wallace went into cardiac arrest and all efforts to resuscitate him failed. Wallace died from massive recent intraperitoneal hemorrhage at approximately 11:59 p.m.
An autopsy revealed that Wallace had a large quantity of blood in his abdomen at the time of his death. The autopsy, however, did not reveal the cause or origin of Wallace's internal bleeding.
To examine the plaintiff's first claim properly, we must initially address the plaintiff's second claim. The second claim addresses the exclusion of portions of the plaintiff's expert testimony. The exclusion of the expert testimony led to the entry of a directed verdict by the trial court, the subject of the first claim.
The plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly excluded the testimony of her expert witness, Jacek Franaszek, a physician, as to the causal connection between the defendant's malpractice and the decedent's injury. The plaintiff further argues that the exclusion of Franaszek's opinion on the probability of the decedent's survival in surgery led the trial court to direct the verdict for the defendant.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81, 93, 644 A.2d 363, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 153 (1994).
At trial, Franaszek testified that the defendant hospital should have assessed and stabilized the patient more quickly so that he might have been admitted for surgery. The plaintiff then asked Franaszek the following question: "[B]ased upon reasonable medical probability, in your opinion, did these deviations from the standard of care cause Mr. Wallace's death?" The defendant objected to this question on two grounds. First, because Franaszek was not a surgeon, he was not qualified to render an opinion on the likelihood of a particular surgical outcome. Second, there was no evidence as to the cause or origin of the decedent's internal bleeding. The trial court subsequently excused the jury, allowed the plaintiff to make an offer of proof and then sustained the defendant's objections on both grounds. The trial court further instructed the plaintiff not to seek Franaszek's opinion on the likelihood that surgery would have saved the decedent.
We conclude that the trial court properly sustained the defendant's objection on the ground that Franaszek was not qualified to render opinions about a surgical outcome. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 783, 621 A.2d 267 (1993). Furthermore, the question of a witness' competency to testify on technical matters is an issue to be determined by the trier by assessing the nature of the technicality involved and the proposed witness' level of expertise concerning these matters. Varley v. Varley, 189 Conn. 490, 501, 457 A.2d 1065 (1983). At trial, the defendant was permitted to voir dire Franaszek about his medical qualifications. From these questions the court learned that Franaszek was not a surgeon or a member of the American College of Surgeons, and had never practiced surgery. Therefore, it was within the trial court's discretion to rule, on the basis of the record in this case, that Franaszek was not a surgeon and thereby not qualified to render an expert opinion on a surgical outcome. 1
We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that there was no foundation for Franaszek to render an expert opinion concerning the probable outcome of surgery. Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 742, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994).
In the present case, the plaintiff offered no evidence as to the rate, cause or origin of the decedent's internal bleeding. Yet, the plaintiff wanted Franaszek to render his expert opinion as to whether the defendant's failure to deliver the decedent to surgery led to his death. If Franaszek had been permitted to render an opinion on the question of a surgical outcome on the decedent, however, it would have been based not on fact but on speculation.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drew v. William W. Backus Hospital, (AC 22986).
...to recovery, must demonstrate lost chance in terms of probability, not possibility. Id., 311. In Wallace v. St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 44 Conn. App. 257, 688 A.2d 352 (1997), this court reaffirmed its earlier decisions in LaBieniec and Borkowski, which applied the traditional ap......
-
Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...proved before such an opinion may be received in evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wallace v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 44 Conn.App. 257, 259-60, 688 A.2d 352 (1997). "To be entitled to damages a plaintiff must establish a causal relation between the injury and t......
-
Grondin v. Curi
...standards of § 52-184c only apply to the standard of care issue and not to causation. See Wallace v. St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 44 Conn. App. 257, 261 n. 1, 688 A.2d 352 (1997). ...
-
Poulin v. Yasner
...fails to present any evidence as to a necessary element of his or her cause of action. See Wallace v. St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 44 Conn. App. 257, 264, 688 A.2d 352 (1997). It is also instructive to discuss the issue of proximate cause because it was the lack of evidence as to ......
-
Significant 1998 Tort Law Developments
...in abatement." 13O. See Coppola, supra, 243 Conn. at 666, n. 11. 131. See id. at 666-67. 132. 239 Conn. 945, 686 A.2d 120 (1996). 133. 44 Conn. App. 257, 688 A.2d 352 134. This analysis does not address situations, such as some circumstances involving the emergency treatment of acute injuri......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...72. Id. at 220. 73. Id, at 221. 74. Id. at 222. 75. Id. at 236. 76. Wagner, supra note 15. 77. Id, at 189-91. 78. Id. at 192-98. 79. 44 Conn. App. 257, 688 A.2d 352 (1997). 80. 11 Conn. App. 199, 526 A.2d 1341 (1987). 81. 43 Conn. App. 294, 682 A-2d 1095 (1996). 82. Id. at 264. (plaintiffs ......