Blatchley v. Mintz

1 Citing case

  1. Kos v. Lawrence + Mem'l Hosp.

    334 Conn. 823 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    The trial court's response to the jury's question regarding the plaintiffs' allegations was consistent with the evidence presented at trial and how the plaintiffs' counsel had argued the plaintiffs' case to the jury. See Blatchley v. Mintz , 81 Conn. App. 782, 787–88, 841 A.2d 1203 ("court properly tailored its instructions to reflect the issues actually before the jury"), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 901, 853 A.2d 519 (2004) ; see also Stokes v. Norwich Taxi, LLC , supra, 289 Conn. at 476, 485, 958 A.2d 1195 (charge must be supported by evidence and adapted to issues in case). The evidence offered in support of the plaintiffs' theory that Girard breached the standard of care came from Young, who testified that Girard improperly failed to conduct the digital rectal exam before the episiotomy repair, which caused her to misdiagnose and improperly repair the fourth degree extension as a third degree extension because a fourth degree extension can be identified only before the repair.