 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasquez v. Rocco12/23/2003
The plaintiff, Gladys Vasquez, commenced this medical malpractice action against the named defendant, Patrick M. Rocco, a surgeon, alleging that he negligently had severed her bile duct while performing laparoscopic surgery to remove her gallbladder. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the trial court rendered judgment thereon. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly had precluded her from cross-examining one of the defendant's expert witnesses about his relationship to the defendant's malpractice insurance carrier. Although we agree with the plaintiff that she was entitled to question the defendant's expert witness about his relationship to the defendant's malpractice insurer, we conclude that the plaintiff has failed to provide this court with a record adequate to determine whether the trial court's contrary ruling was harmful. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. In June, 1997, the defendant surgically removed the plaintiff's gallbladder, a procedure known as a cholecystectomy. Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th Ed. 2000) p. 337. The defendant performed the cholecystectomy laparoscopically by inserting a special camera and certain surgical instruments into small incisions in the plaintiff's abdomen. Several days after the surgery, the plaintiff was jaundiced and suffering from considerable pain. After being readmitted to the hospital, it was discovered that the plaintiff's common bile duct had been severed during the cholecystectomy. The plaintiff subsequently underwent another surgery to repair the severed bile duct.
The plaintiff thereafter brought this action, claiming that the defendant negligently severed her bile duct in performing the cholecystectomy. The defendant admitted that he inadvertently severed the plaintiff's bile duct while performing the surgery but claimed that he had not been negligent in doing so. Consequently, on the question of negligence, the sole issue for the jury was whether the defendant had adhered to the standard of care when, in the course of performing the cholecystectomy, he had severed the plaintiff's bile duct. The plaintiff adduced expert testimony from two physicians, Irvin Modlin and Richard Cohen, that the defendant's negligence was the cause of the severed bile duct. The defendant likewise adduced expert testimony from two physicians, Robert Lincer and Michael Tortora, each of whom testified that the defendant's surgical performance had been within the standard of care required of surgeons who remove gallbladders laparoscopically and that the severing of the bile duct is a risk inherent in such a procedure.
With respect to Lincer's testimony, the plaintiff sought to cross-examine him about his relationship with the defendant's malpractice insurance carrier, Connecticut Medical Insurance Company (Connecticut Medical), a mutual insurance company that is owned by its policyholders. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to elicit that: Lincer, himself, was insured by Connecticut Medical; he had been insured by Connecticut Medical for twelve years; he had served on Connecticut Medical's business development committee for two years; and he recently had been appointed to serve on Connecticut Medical's board of directors. The plaintiff maintained that she was entitled to have the jury apprised of Lincer's relationship with Connecticut Medical to demonstrate Lincer's alleged interest in the outcome of the case.
The trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim and barred her from adducing evidence regarding Lincer's relationship with Connecticut Medical. The court concluded that such evidence would
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|