OUTCOME: plaintiffs verdict $850,000 including interest
Orthopaedic surgeon,John Keggi, m.d. inadvertatnly lacerated the plaintiff's femoral nerve during hip tendon surgery and failed to document that occurence clearly. Post operative deficits in motor func...ition(not complete) and neurogenic pain clued the patient to the fact that something untoward occured during surgery. The surgeon was asked by the patient and denied same and maintained that position through jury trial. The surgeon's defense councel further maintained that even if this occured the way the plaintiff was alleging it was a known complication and not negligence. Obviously the jury disagreed.verdict entered may 2004
Personal injury
Granville Downs v H.N.S. Management
Jan 01, 2004
OUTCOME: Favorable Trial Court Decision, Reversed by Connecticut Supreme Court
272 Conn. 81 (Conn. 2004)
861 A.2d 1160
Constance GORDON
v.
H.N.S. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Inc.
Granville Downs et al.
v.
H.N.S. Management Company, Inc.
No. 17139.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
D...ecember 21, 2004
Argued Sept. 20, 2004.
[861 A.2d 1161]
[861 A.2d 1162]
Page 82
Richard C. Mahoney, with whom, on the brief, was Dennis F. McCarthy, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Paul S. Levin, Hartford, with whom was Jefferson D. Jelly, for the appellees (plaintiffs in both cases).
SULLIVAN C.J., and BORDEN, KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
SULLIVAN, C.J.
The defendant, H.N.S. Management Company, Inc., doing business as Connecticut Transit, appeals from the trial court's rulings that: (1) the claims of the plaintiffs, Constance Gordon and Granville Downs, [1] that the defendant was required by General Statutes §§ 14-29 [2] and 38a- [3]
Page 83
to purchase uninsured and underinsured [861 A.2d 1163] motorist insurance for the buses that it operated pursuant to contracts with the state were not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and (2) as a matter of statutory interpretation, a motor bus is a type of motor vehicle subject to the uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance provisions of the statutes. We conclude that the trial court improperly determined that the defendant was not entitled to raise sovereign immunity as a defense to the plaintiffs' claims. We further conclude that the state has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to such claims. Accordingly, we need not consider the defendant's second claim on appeal. [4]
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. Each plaintiff brought a separate action. In the Gordon case, the parties stipulated that Gordon was a passenger on a bus operated by the defendant in the city of Hartford on April 24, 1996. They further stipulated that she was injured when the driver of an unidentified motor vehicle cut in front of the bus and forced the bus driver to brake abruptly, thereby causing Gordon to fall. Gordon claimed that she was entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-334 et seq.
Page 84
In the Downs case, Downs alleged that he was driving a bus operated by the defendant in the city of East Hartford on August 23, 1995. He further alleged that he was injured when a motor vehicle, driven by Steven Grant, collided with the bus. Downs claimed that he had exhausted the insurance coverage available to Grant and was entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits from the defendant. In his amended complaint, he sought a judgment declaring that the defendant had an obligation to provide underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to §§ 14-29 and 38a-336(f).
In each case, the defendant claimed as a special defense that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. After the cases were consolidated for trial, the court held a hearing on the sovereign immunity issue on December 18, 2001. [5] At that hearing, the defendant argued that it was entitled to assert a sovereign immunity defense under the criteria set forth in Dolnack v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 33 Conn.App. 832, 639 A.2d 530 (1994).
Personal injury
Jackson v Orthopedic Associates
N/A
OUTCOME: $800,000
Simone Jackson v Orthopaedic Associates- a medical malpractice settlement arising from wrist surgery in which the patient's ulnar nerve was inadvertantly lacerated. The surgeon initially claimed abbera...nt anatomy as the reason that the nerve was injured. It was also maintained that this type of injury was a known complication and not necessarily an indication of negligence.Following grueling deposition and disclosure of expert opinions settlement was achieved at approximately $800,000.(2007
Personal injury
Gregory v Royal Tire
N/A
OUTCOME: $225,000
Gregory v Royal Tire- Settlement following tire explosion which appeared the result of a malfunctioning tire inflation pressure gage where the needle did not move as air pressure increased to dangerous... levels. The Defense hired a tire explosion expert who defended Firestone often in tire burst rollover litigation involving Ford SUV's. The case settled following that expert's deposition which was taken in Ohio for the sum of $225,000.New Britain Superior Court(2006)
Personal injury
Bezilla v Cloutier
N/A
OUTCOME: $875,000
Bezilla v Cloutier- Settlement shortly before trial arising out a motor vehicle collission. It was learned that the defendant motor vehicle operator had a depth perception impairment and her Opthamolog...ist's testimony was preserved for use at trial. $875,000. Hartford Superior Court(2005
Personal injury
Ankrah v Zielinski
N/A
OUTCOME: $210,000
Ankrah v Zielinski- Court Judgement arising out of alcohol related motor vehicle accidnt in which Mr. Ankrah was a passenger. Settlement was reached with the Bar which sold alcohol to the driver to the... point of intoxication seperately. The balance of the Court judgement which was not immediately collectible was obtained by obtainiing an injunction/lien against any proceeds to be derived from Mr. Zielinski's own personal injury case. $210,000. Hartford Superior Court(2006
Personal injury
don Phillips v Clement Industries
N/A
OUTCOME: $425,000 settlement
Phillips v Clement Industries- Products liability settlement arising out of a work related injury. Mr. Phillips was injured when struck in the head by a load binder which had been placed on the dump tr...ailer's rear at the height of a six foot man's head. Since the load binder mechanism was known to snap back under force, placing it in the swing path of a man's head was a defective design. The manufacturer's CEO admitted at deposition that the dump trailer in question ought to have had a newer design on it where the steel bar handle would no longer have presented that risk.Settlement was $425,000. New London Superior Court(2006)
Personal injury
Occonor v Tulip construction
N/A
OUTCOME: 1.6 million settlement
Occonor v Tulip Homes- a construction site injury involving the improper use of a ladder and failure to monitor the construction site. The defendant was the general contractor who claimed no knowledge ...or legal responsibility of the dangerous work site conditions which contributed to Mr. Occonor's fall through an open hole in the floor while tumbling off a ladder suffering serious and permanent injuries. Plaintiff was able to demonstrate that the close relationship between the general and sub contractor for which Mr. Occonor worked suggested that the general both knew and had an opportunity to intervene yet failed to do so. Settlement of 1.6 million(2008).
Personal injury
Poteat v State of Connecticut
N/A
OUTCOME: $700,000
Poteat v State of Connecticut - This case involved suing the State of Connecticut for placing and maintaining foster children in an environment where they were subject to physical and sexual abuse. The... extent of such abuse was hotly contested and there were governmental immunity issues which were challenging to overcome. The case eventually settled for the sum of $700,000 and was concluded to the satisfaction of my clients. Middletown Superior Court(2008
Personal injury
Rebecca Proctor v Saint Francis Hospital
N/A
OUTCOME: 2 million dollar plus settlement
Proctor v St.FrancisHospitalet al- Malpractice settlements against several of the six named defendants arising out of a delay in diagnosis and treatment of a benign condition which resulted in legal bl...indness. Defense claims varied but a common theme was that Ms. Proctor would likely have lost her sight regardless of the claimed departures from the standard of care due to the rapidity of the onset of this illness. The exact amount of settlements and on whose behalf remain confidential but gross recovery well exceeded $2,000,000.Hartford Superior Court(2007)
