Michael Smith et al. v. Raymond Andrews et al., 289 Conn. 61

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed a medical malpractice appeal arising from a jury verdict for the defendants in connection with the plaintiff's spinal cord injury during surgery. The court held that evidence of practices at the hospital was properly admitted because expert testimony linked those practices to the applicable national standard of care, and it upheld admission of the challenged hypothetical question. The court also affirmed the judgment concerning the plaintiff's claims of trial misconduct, while the excerpt indicates that the award of trial costs was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Holdings

1. Evidence of a particular hospital's practice is relevant and admissible when supported by expert testimony linking that practice to an accepted, applicable national standard of care.
2. A hypothetical question is admissible when its assumptions bear a true and fair relationship to the evidence, are not likely to mislead or confuse the jury, and contain sufficient essential facts to be useful in deciding the case.
3. The court declined to review the plaintiff's unpreserved claims concerning defense counsel's use of a trial schedule and conduct during summation because the claims were abandoned or inadequately briefed and did not warrant plain-error, constitutional, or supervisory-authority review.
4. Trial costs may be taxed against a party only when expressly authorized by statute; the offer-of-compromise statute does not independently authorize costs that are not otherwise authorized by statute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence concerning the intubation practices at St. Vincent's Hospital was relevant and admissible to establish compliance with the applicable national standard of care.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting a hypothetical question concerning the plaintiff's condition and the standard of care.
3. Whether alleged improprieties by defense counsel during trial required a new trial despite the plaintiff's failure to preserve and adequately brief the claims.
4. Whether the trial court had statutory authority to tax the defendants' expedited trial transcripts, videoconference deposition expenses, expenses for defendants and employees testifying at trial, and expert preparation, travel, transportation, and hotel expenses as costs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded