Legal Opinion
McVERRY v. Charash
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 18, 2006No. AC 26124PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
Successful pursuit of a medical malpractice case generally requires a plaintiff to present expert testimony because the requirements for proper medical diagnosis and treatment are not within the common knowledge of laypersons. Gold v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 262 Conn. 248, 254-55, 811 A.2d 1266 (2002). A trial court may issue a scheduling order for the timely disclosure of the plaintiffs expert witnesses. Practice Book § 13-4 (4) authorizes a trial court to impose sanctions for failure to comply with such a scheduling order. In this case, relying on a protracted history of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Millbrook Owners Ass'n v. Hamilton StandardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Gold v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smart v. CorbittConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Doyle v. KammConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Forster v. GianopoulosConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Dorreman v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- McVerry v. CharashSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006