Frederick J. Trotta, Sr. recently obtained a second defendant’s verdict this year for a national emergency care service, in a medical malpractice action tried to a jury in New Haven. The plaintiffs in this action were a woman who suffered a perforated appendix and her husband’s resulting loss of consortium claim. The plaintiff was taken to a New Haven County acute care hospital on July 11, 2012 for what was thought to be food poisoning. She returned to the same hospital via ambulance on July 13, 2012 with continued complaints of gastrointestinal pain. After refusing recommendations by the Emergency Department Physician for a CT scan she was discharged with careful follow up instructions. The plaintiff was then treated by her primary care physician on July 16, 2012 who sent her to the Emergency Department at a different acute-care hospital in New Britain where she again refused a CT scan, was offered hospital admission, and then was ultimately discharged home. The following day on July 17, 2012 she was seen by a gastroenterologist. After continued illness the plaintiff presented to the New Britain acute-care hospital on July 20, 2012 where she was put under surveillance for two additional days and underwent surgery where it was ultimately determined that she had a perforated appendix.
The plaintiff sued the first emergency room doctor, the New Haven affiliation of the national emergency care service, the New Britain acute-care hospital, the gastroenterologist and his gastroenterology medical practice, seeking to recover over $2 million in damages. The plaintiff alleged that each of the doctors deviated from the standard of care by failing to conduct the necessary investigation, obtain necessary diagnostic procedures, obtain a surgical consult, arrange for hospital admission and provide sufficient information in response to a “reluctance” to undergo a CT scan. In response, Fred argued that the first emergency medicine physician followed the standard of care and appropriately treated the plaintiff. Fred argued along with co-defendant(s) counsel that, if the plaintiff suffered any injuries it was due to her own negligence in refusing to consent to a CT scan despite numerous recommendations, impeding the diagnosis by refusing the CT scan, and failing to mitigate her damages by refusing to consent on multiple occasions to a CT scan despite recommendations of her treating physicians.
Following three weeks of evidence and testimony presented by both sides, including testimony from numerous family members, doctors, and experts, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all three of the defendants.