Legal Opinion
Friedman v. Meriden Orthopaedic Group, P.C.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 14, 2004No. SC 17047PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BORDEN, J.
The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-184c (d) (2),1 properly precluded certain *59portions of the testimony of the plaintiffs expert regarding the prevailing professional standard of care in this medical malpractice action. The plaintiff, James Friedman, appeals, following our grant of certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s judgment, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, Meriden Orthopaedic Group, P.C., and Paul Zimmering.3 The plaintiff claims…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- HLO Land Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Blumenthal v. Kimber Manufacturing, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Pool v. BellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Grondin v. CuriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tornaquindici v. KeggiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Farrell v. BassConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Russo v. Phoenix Internal Medicine Associates, P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Villa v. RiosConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Novak v. GoodrichConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.