High Court Rejects Appeals By OB-GYN and Midwife, Upholds $4.2 Million for Family of Baby Injured in Childbirth
The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that the defense's appeal of a $4.2 million jury award in a medical malpractice case was untimely.
June 08, 2020 at 05:58 AM
3 minute read
A unanimous ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court has allowed a $4.2 million verdict to stand against an obstetrics and gynecology center in Bridgeport, which a trial jury agreed was responsible for permanent nerve damage to a child born in their care.
Plaintiffs counsel claimed that defendant OB-GYN Services P.C. failed to file an appeal of the October 2016 verdict within a mandatory 20 days.
The defendant had filed a motion to suspend the rules of the Practice Book to permit a late appeal. It also argued that the the Connecticut Appellate Court's decision to dismiss an untimely appeal was an abuse of discretion.
But the state's high court disagreed.
"Our decision in the present case means only that each case must stand or fall on its own merits," Justice Raheem Mullins wrote for the majority. "And the merits of this case do not persuade us that the Appellate Court abused its discretion."
Mullins wrote that a mistake on the part of the defense in filing an appeal was not the fault of the Appellate Court.
"Nor was the Appellate Court required to determine that the defendants' untimeliness was due to a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that Practice Book No. 63-1 (c) (1) provided them with a new appeal period," Mullins wrote.
The decision closes the matter, and allows the $4.2 million jury verdict and $1.6 million in interest for the family of Jenniyah Georges in Georges v. OB-GYN Services to stand.
The ruling stemmed from a 2011 lawsuit, which Maria Leoma filed against the Bridgeport-based health facility and certified nurse midwife Brenda Gilmore, alleging daughter Jenniyah sustained severe and permanent nerve damage following her 2009 birth.
Leoma claimed the defendants committed malpractice during her pregnancy, labor and during the delivery of her child.
In a separate, divided opinion, the high court ruled the Connecticut Appellate Court was not obligated to grant defendants a late appeal, despite arguments to the contrary. In the 4-2 ruling, Justices Gregory D'Auria and Richard Palmer dissented, saying the Appellate Court should have allowed the defense to file.
"I see no floodgates of late appeals bursting open if appellate courts were to take account of such confusion when considering whether to permit late appeals," D'Auria wrote for the minority.
Representing the plaintiffs were Alinor Sterling and James Horwitz of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport. Sterling declined to comment and Horwitz could not be reached by press time.
Representing the defense was David Robertson of Heidell Pittoni Murphy & Bach in Bridgeport and Malaina Sylvestre, who worked on the case when she was with the firm of Heidell Pittoni Murphy & Bach. Robertson declined to comment and Sylvestre did not respond to a request for comment.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
- 2How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
- 3Insurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
- 4Supply Chain Challenges and Opportunities Under the Second Trump Administration
- 5As Atlanta Partners Moved to Am Law 200 Firms at a Higher Rate in 2024, 2 New Arrivals Benefited
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250