Lynch v. State
Citations
- 348 Conn. 478
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, L and M, individually and in their representative capacities as parents of their minor son, J, and as the administrators of the estate of their daughter, S, sought to recover damages for the alleged medical malpractice of the named defendant, the state of Connecticut, in connec- tion with certain therapeutic donor insemination (TDI) services and prenatal care provided to them at a state hospital. Prior to the plaintiffs' initial visit, hospital staff sent them a patient information packet that included general information about TDI risks, approved sperm banks, and testing that TDI patients are required to undergo, including testing for cytomegalovirus (CMV). Because of the risks to fetal health associ- ated with a mother's initial exposure to CMV in early pregnancy, it was necessary for the hospital to determine both M's and the sperm donor's CMV status. The patient information packet also stated, in accordance with accepted professional guidelines, that, if a patient tests negative for CMV, only CMV negative donor sperm should be used. Thereafter, M, who had tested negative for CMV, underwent a successful intrauterine insemination procedure using sperm from a CMV positive donor and became pregnant with J and S. The physician who performed the proce- dure did not check the donor's CMV status and allegedly did not seek or obtain M's informed consent for the procedure. Throughout her preg- nancy, M received care from the hospital's prenatal care staff. When M was twenty-two weeks pregnant, she underwent an ultrasound that revealed that J and S displayed conditions associated with an in utero CMV infection. M's prenatal care physician did not perform any follow- up tests to rule out a CMV infection, inform M of the ultrasound results, or include a copy of those results in M's medical records. Subsequently, 348 Conn. 478 FEBRUARY, 2024 479 Lynch v. State it was discovered that S had died in utero from a severe CMV infection, and J was born with debilitat
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 21,376×
- EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court· 1996-07-08· cited 1,699×
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- Graziani v. Committee on Legal EthicsSupreme Court· 1974-05-13· cited 214×
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co.Sixth Circuit· 2010-09-08· cited 213×
- Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1983-02-10· cited 197×
- Turpin v. SortiniCalifornia Supreme Court· 1982-05-03· cited 165×
- Procanik by Procanik v. CilloSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1984-08-01· cited 128×
- Viera v. CohenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-08-07· cited 80×
- Ochs v. BorrelliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-06-01· cited 68×
- Hester v. DwivediOhio Supreme Court· 2000-09-06· cited 68×
- State v. ReidSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-09-05· cited 61×
- State v. KirschSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-05-06· cited 58×
- Circle Lanes of Fairfield, Inc. v. FaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-03-26· cited 57×
- Carrano v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-22· cited 49×
- Dilieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-29· cited 48×
- McKernan v. AasheimWashington Supreme Court· 1984-08-30· cited 40×
- Wilson v. KuenziSupreme Court of Missouri· 1988-05-17· cited 38×
- Cooper v. Delta Chi Housing Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1996-04-16· cited 37×
- Klein v. Norwalk HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-12-21· cited 33×
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.