DeMaria v. Bridgeport
Citations
- 339 Conn. 477
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 52-174 (b)), ''any party offering in evidence a signed report . . . for treatment of any treating physician . . . may have the report . . . admitted into evidence as a business entry and it shall be presumed that the signature on the report is that of such treating physi- cian . . . and that the report . . . [was] made in the ordinary course of business.'' The plaintiff sought to recover damages, pursuant to the municipal defective highway statute (§ 13a-149), from the defendant city for personal injuries he sustained when he fell on a city sidewalk. After his fall, the plaintiff received treatment for certain symptoms from a number of medical professionals, including his primary care provider, V, at a Veterans Administration hospital. V ultimately wrote a final report for the plain- tiff's medical file, in which she concluded that his injuries, namely, a permanent disability of neuropathy and permanent weakness in his left hand, were caused with a reasonable degree of medical certainty by the fall. Prior to trial, the city filed a motion in limine to preclude the admission of V's treatment records and reports, as well as her medical opinions and conclusions, on the ground that they were inadmissible under § 52-174 (b) because the city would have no opportunity, either at a deposition or at trial, to cross-examine V, who was precluded from testifying by virtue of the applicable federal regulation (38 C.F.R. § 14.808 (2017)) prohibiting Department of Veterans Affairs personnel from pro- viding testimony in certain legal proceedings. The trial court denied that motion, and, on the first day of trial, the city moved to preclude the admission of V's final report on the ground that V, a physician assistant, was not competent to render an opinion on the permanency of the plaintiff's injuries. The court denied that motion, as well. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict. The
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. FauciSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-04-10· cited 161×
- Struckman v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-12-15· cited 134×
- Jefferson Garden Associates v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-01-27· cited 119×
- State v. CooperSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-08-19· cited 95×
- D'AMATO v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1953-06-09· cited 84×
- Gordon v. Indusco Management Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1973-01-24· cited 84×
- Lopiano v. LopianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-12-29· cited 66×
- State v. JeustinianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-01-18· cited 51×
- United States v. New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc.Second Circuit· 1962-06-20· cited 45×
- Troyan v. ReyesAppellate Court of Illinois· 2006-09-29· cited 41×
- Canty v. OttoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-01· cited 32×
- State v. JordanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-29· cited 24×
- Rhode v. MillaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-15· cited 15×
- Bruneau v. SeabrookConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-08-24· cited 11×
- Milliun v. New Milford HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-05-31· cited 11×
- Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-01-14· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.