Foster v. Smithkline Corp.

556 A.2d 1064, 18 Conn. App. 133, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 98
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided March 28, 1989·No. 6569·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] erred (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

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

556 A.2d 1064 (Foster v. Smithkline Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. Smithkline Corp.
559 A.2d 1140 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)