DocketNumber: No. CV99-0422166S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11092, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 134
Judges: ZOARSKI, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 9/13/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Also on March 17, 2000, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground of res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff argues that the negligence of the defendant is apparent without the aid of expert testimony. The plaintiff filed her own affidavit and memorandum of law in support of the motion. The defendant filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment on June 6, 2000, arguing that no expert testimony on the CT Page 11093 required standard of care in the field is in evidence at this time.
Summary judgment provides a method to resolve litigation when all of the evidence presented shows both that there is no question of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miles v. Foley,
The party moving for summary judgment must support its motion with affidavits or other supporting documentation. See Heyman Associates No. 1v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania,
The plaintiff argues in her memorandum in support of her summary judgment motion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case. Conversely, the defendant claims that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of law, and therefore cannot be a basis for granting summary judgment for the plaintiff. In the alternative, the defendant argues that res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this situation because the plaintiff, by not presenting expert testimony, has not shown the elements of a medical malpractice action.
"The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, literally the thing speaks for itself, permits a jury to infer negligence when no direct evidence of negligence has been introduced." Gilbert v. Middlesex Hospital,
Res ipsa loquitur does not apply when the plaintiff alleges specific acts of negligence. See Gilbert v. Middlesex Hospital, supra, CT Page 11094
Generally, to prevail in a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached the standard of care. See General Statutes §
The plaintiff must provide expert testimony that the defendant was negligent unless "there is manifest such gross want of care or skill as to afford, of itself, an almost conclusive inference of negligence that the testimony of an expert is not necessary." Bourquin v. Melsungen,
In the present case, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence from experts on the standard of care in Connecticut. The sole evidence presented by the plaintiff is her affidavit stating that sutures were left in her abdomen after surgery. The plaintiffs named expert witnesses, while listed in defense interrogatories, have not provided affidavits or any other information on the nature of the expert testimony. Without any evidence of whether leaving sutures in the patient after surgery violates the standard of care in Connecticut, there is a question of material fact in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Howard F. Zoarski