DocketNumber: No. CV94 0138249 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1507-Z, 13 Conn. L. Rptr. 509
Judges: D'ANDREA, J.
Filed Date: 2/16/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Practice Book § 220(D) provides in pertinent part that "any plaintiff expecting to call an expert witness at trial shall disclose the name of that expert, the subject matter on which the expert is to testify, the substance of the facts or opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. . . ."
The defendant argues that the substance of the plaintiff's disclosure is the names of the doctors and the medical reports provided, and that it fails to comply with Practice Book § 220. The plaintiff argues that the medical reports are sufficient to demonstrate the opinions of the doctors in regard to the treatment, diagnosis and prognosis of the plaintiff.
The Appellate Court has determined that merely providing copies of expert's reports is insufficient to comply with Practice Book § 220(D). Sung v. Butterworth,
Therefore, the plaintiff's responses to interrogatories and disclosure of expert witnesses are insufficient to comply with Practice Book § 220(D). Accordingly, the defendant's objection to plaintiff's disclosure of expert witnesses is sustained and the plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental disclosure in compliance with Practice Book § 220(D).