Foster v. Smithkline Corp.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Foster v. Smithkline Corp.

556 A.2d 1064, 18 Conn. App. 133, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 98

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1989

Docket6569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 556 A.2d 1064 (Foster v. Smithkline Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foster v. Smithkline Corp., 556 A.2d 1064, 18 Conn. App. 133, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 98 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered after the court directed a defendants’ verdict. He claims the trial court [134]*134erred (1) in excluding certain hospital records and medical reports, (2) in excluding testimony from the plaintiffs expert concerning causation of gynecomastia, (3) in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint, (4) in excluding from evidence an authoritive medical study used by the plaintiff’s treating physician, and (5) in directing a verdict for the defendant.

The claims of error pressed by the plaintiff implicate the discretionary powers of the trial court. Our review fails to disclose any abuse of such discretion.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In this malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered after the court directed a defendants’ verdict. He claims the trial court [134]*134erred (1) in excluding certain hospital records and medical reports, (2) in excluding testimony from the plaintiffs expert concerning causation of gynecomastia, (3) in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint, (4) in excluding from evidence an authoritive medical study used by the plaintiff’s treating physician, and (5) in directing a verdict for the defendant.

The claims of error pressed by the plaintiff implicate the discretionary powers of the trial court. Our review fails to disclose any abuse of such discretion.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 A.2d 1064, 18 Conn. App. 133, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-smithkline-corp-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack