Wexler v. Demaio
Decision Date | 03 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 17466.,17466. |
Citation | 280 Conn. 168,905 A.2d 1196 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Howard WEXLER et al. v. John T. DeMAIO et al. |
William F. Gallagher, Syracuse, NY, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh D. Hughes, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Andrew J. O'Keefe, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph M. Busher, Jr., Hartford, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
Paul T. Nowosadko, with whom, on the brief, was Lorinda S. Coon, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Lynn K. Davis).
NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
In this certified appeal,1 the plaintiffs, Howard Wexler and Judith Wexler,2 claim that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the summary judgment rendered by the trial court after that court had precluded the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that their June 26, 2003 disclosure (June disclosure) of Peter H. Wiernik as an expert witness failed to comply with Practice Book § 13-4(4).3 We agree and accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant procedural history. "By amended complaint filed August 7, 1998, the plaintiffs brought [a medical malpractice] action against the defendant physicians, John T. DeMaio, John M. DaSilva, Michael J. Tortora and Lynn K. Davis,4 alleging [that they negligently had diagnosed and treated Howard Wexler's recurrent infections and hairy cell leukemia] ... between November, 1994, and January, 1996. The defendants filed interrogatories and requests for production in the spring of 1998, in which they asked the plaintiffs to identify any expert witness to be called at trial, and to disclose the subject matter, facts and opinions on which the expert was expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. The plaintiffs responded in August, 1998, that the expert disclosure would be `supplied in accordance with [§ 13-4] ....'
8 Wexler v. DeMaio, 88 Conn. App. 818, 820-24, 871 A.2d 1071 (2005).
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs claimed that: "(1) the court's articulation on September 4, 2003, of its June 12, 2003 order was not reasonably clear and that their disclosure on June 26, 2003, complied with the reasonable meaning of the court's June 12, 2003 order, and (2) the court abused its discretion by requiring that the plaintiffs' disclosure of their expert witness meet the federal standard for disclosure of expert witnesses." Id., at 824-25, 871 A.2d 1071. In a divided...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic
...is a question of law that is squarely presented to this court for the first time. As such, our review is plenary. Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 181, 905 A.2d 1196 (2006) ("[b]ecause the propriety of that finding necessarily depends on the propriety of the trial court's legal conclusion c......
-
Klein v. Norwalk Hosp.
...section involves a question of law,[overwhich] our review ... is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 181-82, 905 A.2d 1196 (2006). Practice Book § 13-4(4) "plainly requires a plaintiff to disclose: (1) the name of the expert witness; (2) the subjec......
-
Travelers Property and Cas. Co. v. Christie
...basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 188-89, 905 A.2d 1196 (2006), quoting United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958). We further co......
-
Wyszomierski v. Siracusa
...eliminate unfair surprise by furnishing the opposing parties with the essential elements of a party's claim. See Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 188-89, 905 A.2d 1196 (2006). Section 13-4(4) authorizes the court to preclude expert testimony "[as a] sanction for late disclosure of an expert......
-
2006 Survey of Developments in Civil Litigation
...Tauro v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 279 Conn. 280, 901 A.2d 1186 (2006)(deference to agency regarding issues of credibility). 41. 280 Conn. 168, 905 A.2d 1196 (2006). 42. 277 Conn. 424, 892 A.2d 938 (2006). 43. 277 Conn. 496, 893 A.2d 371 (2006). 44. 280 Conn. 1, 905 A.2d 55 (2006). 45......