Disclosures About Expert Testimony Sufficient Even When General
(April 2011) While in the hospital for an emergency appendectomy, Eric Klein suffered an injury that provided him with continued pain, diminished quality of life and negative affects at work. The injury, however, was not a lasting effect from the removed appendix, but rather a postoperative error. The injury was the consequence of a nurse transferring the location of Klein’s intravenous line (IV). While the nurse was inserting the new IV, Klein felt a sharp pain in his left arm, then numbness.
Klein was diagnosed with anterior interosseous nerve palsy; an injury for which he filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital.
Before trial, Klein disclosed that two expert witnesses would testify at trial. The disclosure stated that the first expert would testify to standard of care, the departure from that standard, the cause of the injury and damages; while the second expert would testify about Parsonage Turner Syndrome (PTS). At trial, however, the first expert also testified about PTS, prompting the defense to object to the testimony.
The trial court sustained the objection, stating that the first expert’s testimony about PTS was not included in the disclosure. The jury found for the defendant and Klein appealed, claiming that the first expert’s testimony was improperly excluded. The court of appeals found the exclusion harmless and affirmed the trial court. The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the lower courts – finding the exclusion to be “improper and harmful – and granted Klein a new trial.
Expert testimony disclosure in Connecticut must provide fair notice, and if fair notice is provided, the disclosure is sufficient. The Connecticut Supreme Court found that Klein’s disclosure stating that the expert would testify to the cause of the injury to be sufficient disclosure, enough so that the expert may testify to PTS or other syndromes.
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling helps all plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, in that plaintiffs who have expert testimony about syndromes improperly excluded due to incomplete disclosures are entitled to a new trial, specifically when the exclusion of the testimony may affect the trial.