Results

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Home Hospice Provider

James Newfield and Charmagne Padua obtained summary judgment on behalf of a home hospice provider. Plaintiff claimed that defendants’ negligence caused or contributed to the development and/or worsening of pressure ulcers suffered by plaintiff’s decedent. Newfield and Padua successfully argued that the negligence by plaintiff were outside of the scope of practice of the hospice providers and that the wounds were clinically unavoidable given the patient’s underlying comorbidities. (2025)

Plaintiff Discontinued Action in Response to Summary Judgment Motion

Donna Marie Woodstock filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a home health agency. The case arose from a diabetic foot wound that became infected requiring extensive debridement. Plaintiff sued the hospital, podiatrist, and a home health agency. Donna Marie argued that wound care provided by the home health agency was proper, records documented that there was no signs or symptoms of infection during the admission and plaintiff was discharged at her own request because she was independent in wound care and did not want further home nursing care. Plaintiff’s counsel advised that they would not oppose the motion and would discontinue against the home health agency. The case continued against the co-defendants. (2025)

Defense Verdict for Internal Medicine Practice in Wrongful Death Claim

Diana M. Carlino and James B. Rosenblum received a defense verdict in a wrongful death action brought against an internal medicine practice in Danbury Superior Court. Plaintiff claimed that the medical providers failed to diagnose and treat an impending heart attack, and that the providers failed to obtain the patient’s informed refusal to undergo treatment. Attorneys Carlino and Rosenblum argued that the providers complied with the applicable standard of care in their treatment of the patient. They were also awarded costs expended to defend the suit, in accordance with state statute. (2023)

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Home Health Care Agency

Diana M. Carlino successfully moved for Summary Judgment in Kings County Supreme Court, dismissing the medical malpractice action against a home health care agency. Plaintiff alleged that the client failed to provide proper wound care to the patient, which necessitated a prolonged hospitalization and subsequent interventions to debride and care for the decubitus ulcer. Attorney Carlino had previously succeeded on her motion to dismiss the wrongful death claim, as barred by the statute of limitations.

Supreme Court Finds in Favor of OB-GYN in Informed Consent / Misrepresentation Case

Plaintiff claimed that defendant OB-GYN referred Plaintiff to a non-party defendant urologist for consultation for insertion of a transvaginal mesh sling. After the patient suffered complications, she brought a claim against the OB-GYN alleging that the OB-GYN did not advise her of the risks, benefits and alternatives of the procedure, and misrepresented the procedure when the OB-GYN said the mesh sling was “safe”. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision finding that the OB-GYN, who did not insert the sling, did not have a duty to obtain the patient’s informed consent.  The Supreme Court also found that because the OB-GYN did not know what product the urologist was going to implant, the OB-GYN could not have negligently or intentionally misled, misinformed or misrepresented the quality, usefulness, risks and benefits of the sling.  Fajardo v. Boston Scientific, et al.  (2021)

Radiologist Dismissed in Malpractice Claim

The trial court dismissed the action against a radiologist who was claimed to have negligently read a CTA, resulting in the misdiagnosis of the degree of stenosis in a patient who later had a stroke. Diana Carlino moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the case was not properly commenced because the radiologist-defendant was not served in hand or at his abode and he did not have notice of the action within the statute of limitations. (2021)

Connecticut Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal

The Connecticut Appellate Court unanimously rejected Plaintiffs’ efforts to avoid the statute of limitations and upheld the trial court’s decision on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In response to timely motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs attempted to file an amended complaint “as of right” with a good faith letter of a similar health care provider that did not exist before the statute of limitations expired. Defendants objected to the untimely amendment. The trial court dismissed the case, in favor of defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Court found that there was no original opinion letter to “amend or substitute”, and such curative actions could not take place after the statute of limitations had expired. The Connecticut Supreme Court declined to review the Appellate Court’s decision. Attorney Diana M. Carlino appeared on behalf of the defendant physician. Barnes v. Greenwich Hospital, 207 Conn. App. 512 (2021).

Defense Verdict for Internal Medicine Physician in Wrongful Death Claim

Diana M. Carlino and James S. Newfield received a defense verdict in a wrongful death action brought against an internal medicine physician in Hartford Superior Court. In the month-long trial, plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to screen for lung cancer from 2005-2012, and failed to order a chest x-ray on a visit in 2006 when the patient presented to the physician’s office with chest complaints. The patient was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer in 2012 and succumbed to the disease shortly thereafter. Unbeknownst to the physician, a spiculated mass had been identified on a chest CT during a hospitalization in 2004, which was not followed-up on by the attending surgeon or surgical resident. The hospital and surgeon settled their claims prior to trial. Attorneys Carlino and Newfield argued that the 2004 spicule was not the lung cancer that was ultimately diagnosed, and the then-prevailing standard of care did not require lung cancer screening. (2019)

Appellate Court Dismissed Action Finding that Opinion Letter by Clinical Pathologist Was Not Sufficient in Claim Alleging Departure in Anatomical Pathology

Jim Biondo and Diana Carlino argued that Plaintiff’s good faith opinion letter written by a clinical pathologist was not sufficient under § 52-184c, where their claims sounded in anatomic pathology and their clients were dual-board certified. The trial court granted their motion to dismiss, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. Caron v. Connecticut Pathology Group, P.C., 206 A. 3d 187 (2019).

Dismissal Granted in Untimely Wrongful Death Action

Diana M. Carlino obtained a judgment dismissing a wrongful death action against an internal medicine physician in Stamford Superior Court. Plaintiff alleged that the physician failed to enter proper orders regarding nutrition while the patient resided at a Fairfield County nursing home, leading to the patient’s death. Attorney Carlino filed a motion arguing that the summons and complaint were served after the statute of limitations expired.

Trial on Damages Only Resulted in Verdict Below Settlement Demand

Jim Biondo and Diana Carlino defended internists during wrongful death trial, where client admitted liability. Defense focused on damages, wherein plaintiff was seeking unrealistic damage award. Jury returned verdict for amount defense had offered in settlement. (2017)

Settlement Reached During Jury Deliberations in Wrongful Death Case

James Rosenblum and Diana Carlino represented a general surgeon and his medical practice in a wrongful death action brought in New Britain, Connecticut. The suit was originally brought against the surgeon, an intensivist and the hospital. Before trial, the claims against the intensivist and the hospital were settled. The case was tried against the surgeon. The patient received care and treatment in the intensive care unit at the hospital following a laparoscopic cholecystectomy that had been performed by the surgeon. The intensive care unit was a closed unit. Plaintiff claimed that the surgeon failed to timely diagnose and treat a bowel perforation, that caused the patient’s death. Defendants presented radiologic evidence to demonstrate that there was no indication of a perforation and that the patient’s symptoms could be attributed to the patient’s comorbidities. When radiologic evidence eventually did show evidence of a perforation, surgical repair was performed. Plaintiff claimed loss of life’s enjoyment, loss of consortium, and lost wages. The case was settled satisfactorily during the second day of jury deliberations.

Appellate Court Upheld Dismissal in Favor of Neurologist Finding That Plaintiff Did Not Timely Commence the Action

Diana Carlino and Jim Biondo successfully argued that the action was not timely commenced against Defendant Neurologist. They also successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to amend the writ, arguing that irregularities in service were not defects that were subject to amendment. The Court also found that “when the plaintiffs failed to serve [defendant] as agent for service at his business address, they had both the necessary information and the statutory authorization to effectuate timely abode service.” Prenderville v. Sinclair, 164 Conn. App. 439 (2016).

Arbitration Award for Physician Against Third Party Payor

Jim Biondo and Diana Carlino obtained an arbitration award in favor of physician/client in claim against Third Party Payor (TPP) regarding termination of provider status. Physician/client alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from the approved provider list. Substantial evidence was produced demonstrating that TPP improperly excluded physician/client, then asserted improper allegations and irrelevant evidence in an attempt to justify their decision. Arbitration award not only fully reinstated physician/client, but ordered TPP to pay costs of arbitration.

Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal Against OB-GYN

The Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the court could not consider an opinion letter that had been obtained after the action was commenced, after the motion to dismiss had been filed, and after the statute of limitations expired. Attorney Jim Biondo argued that urologist who wrote the good faith opinion letter was not a similar health care provider to an OB-GYN. Torres v. Carrese, 149 Conn. App. 596 (2014)

Second Circuit Upheld Psychiatrist-Patient Privilege

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) in favor of the defendants, holding that Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-146d and 52-146e must be read in light of the underlying purpose of the psychiatrist-patient privilege, i.e., the need to safeguard confidential communications or records of a patient seeking diagnosis and treatment so as to protect the therapeutic relationship. Thus, it is axiomatic that communications that bear no relationship to the purpose for which the privilege was enacted do not obtain shelter under the statute and are admissible under the normal rules of evidence. Davidson v. Rubinstein, MD, et al (2012)

Defense Verdict for Lack of Informed Consent / Battery by Dentist

Jim Biondo obtained a unanimous defense verdict in claim for Lack of Informed Consent/Battery in Waterbury, Connecticut. Plaintiff sought typical damages, plus punitive damages for the alleged intentional tort. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to properly obtain his consent for a procedure, and then in fact performed a different procedure from which he had consented to. The provider aggressively disputed the allegations, using expert and factual testimony. Defense verdict was obtained after less than 15 minutes of jury deliberations.

Dismissal of Action for Failure to Provide Good Faith Letter

Jim Biondo obtained a dismissal of action, after completion of jury selection, in a case against an obstetrician. The claim involved failure to diagnose placenta abnormalities, resulting in life-threatening hemorrhage during delivery, and permanent injuries. Dismissal was secondary to a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a supporting good faith letter by a similar health care provider (C.G.S. §52-190a & C.G.S. §52-184c(c)).

Defense Verdict for Gastroenterologist in Claim for Permanent Injury

Attorney James Newfield obtained a unanimous jury decision for the defendant, a gastroenterologist. The case, brought in Orange County, New York, involved a claim that improper endoscopy caused necrotizing pneumonia, necessitating lung resection with permanent debility.

Defense Verdict in Neurosurgical Case

Jim Biondo obtained a defense verdict in 20 minutes in a complex neurosurgery case. Plaintiff alleged serious, permanent neurological problems. This is one of many cases where a co-defendant blamed another physician and brought that physician into the case, and then settled, financing the case against the remaining defendant.

Defense Verdict for Anesthesiologist

Jim Newfield achieved a defense verdict in a complex anesthesia case after four weeks of trial, including three days of jury deliberations, in an anesthesia case. Plaintiffs alleged an overdose of propofol, leading to respiratory depression, oxygen desaturation and cardiac arrest, followed by a stroke with hemiparesis, in connection with an ERCP. The anesthesia was “Monitored Anesthesia Care,” also known as “MAC” or “consious sedation.” Expert witnesses included neurologists, neuro-radiologists, anesthesiologists, and rehabilitation specialists.

Verdict Successfully Apportioned to Previously Settled Defendant

Nominal damages awarded in response to $5 Million Demand. Jim Biondo obtained a phenomenal result in connection with a bariatric surgery case. The jury found for plaintiffs, but awarded plaintiff less than $90,000, and attributed most damages to a prior defendant who had settled. The case involved bariatric surgery. After the surgeon had settled, plaintiff continued the action against the anesthesiologist, claiming that the anesthesiologist was responsible for a delay in surgically treating hemorrhage, even though the surgeon had left the hospital and delayed returning when paged. Plaintiff claimed years of treatment, including surgery.

Defense Verdict for Gynecologist

Jim Newfield achieved a defense verdict in a New York case involving general surgery, pending in Carmel, NY (Putnam Co.). Plaintiff alleged that defendant, a gynecologist specializing in cancer surgery, negligently perforated the small intestine, during a procedure to search for recurrent ovarian cancer, which was necessary to biopsy before administering adjuvent therapy. The patient was found to have a perforation and peritonitis, and underwent further surgery, and died a few days after the surgery in question.

Connecticut Supreme Court Rejected Claim for National Standard of Care

Supreme Court affirmed defense verdict and rejected claims of failure to show compliance with “national” standard of care. Smith v. Andrews, 289 Conn. 61, 959 A.2d 597 (2008).

Connecticut Appellate Court Held Cardiologist Is Not Similar Healthcare Provider to an Internal Medicine Physician

Appellate Court affirmed defense verdict and ruled that cardiologist precluded from testifying about standard of care of internal medicine specialist. Russo v. Phoenix Internal Medicine Associates, PC, 109 Conn. App. 80, 87, 950 A.2d 559 (2008).