Medical Malpractice Defense
Wiggin and Danaโs Medical Malpractice Defense Practice Group has represented hospitals and health care providers in hundreds of cases alleging professional negligence, spanning more than 30 years. As one of the principal defense counsel in medical malpractice actions for a premier Connecticut hospital and academic medical center, Wiggin and Dana has successfully defended matters involving complex medical issues and large damage exposure. Representative cases include claims of birth trauma, delayed diagnosis of cancer, wrongful death, anesthesia complications, and brain injuries. Our attorneys have represented physicians of all specialties, as well as nurses, psychologists, and other health care providers. We have also defended claims alleging lack of informed consent, misrepresentation, emotional distress, sexual misconduct, and violations of HIPAA and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
Wiggin and Dana attorneys routinely consult with clients on risk management issues and pre-litigation matters, providing practical tips from the cases we have defended. We also have a proven track record in matters brought by the Department of Public Health (DPH), including claims of provider substance abuse. We have successfully represented physicians and other health care providers in DPH matters, including representation in DPH investigations, at compliance conferences, and at administrative hearings and appeals.
Co-Chair of our Medical Malpractice Defense Practice Erika Amarante was recently appointed Chair of DRIโs Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee for the 2023-2025 term. Our team includes nationally recognized appellate counsel, who collaborate with trial counsel to address complex or novel issues that arise at the trial level. In addition, we have extensive experience in medical malpractice appeals. For example, our appellate lawyers were retained for the post-verdict motions and appeals for the two largest medical malpractice verdicts in Connecticut, in cases defended at trial by other firms. Both cases ended with favorable settlements after briefs were filed. Our lawyers have a long history of success in cases of first impression involving medical malpractice and health care law.
News
Publications
Events
Podcasts
Videos
People
Experience
Our recent trial court experience includes:
- Defense verdict after 3-week jury trial alleging medical negligence, lack of informed consent and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of prenatal genetic test results
- Directed verdict in a jury trial in a medical negligence case involving pre-operative nursing care
- Defense judgment after a bench trial in a case alleging lack of informed consent
- Defense judgment after bench trial in a case alleging failure to diagnose and treat a rare eye disease
- Defense verdict in a trial alleging lack of informed consent
- Successful motions to strike a parentโs claim for loss of filial consortium
- Repeated wins when moving to strike CUTPA claims arising out of medical care
- Significant briefing and argument in defense of plaintiffโs requests for peer review materials in credentialing files
Before the Department of Public Health:
- Exceptional success rate in resolving DPH matters in favor of the providers and institutions
- Contested evidentiary hearings before DPH in a variety of medical specialties
Representative appellate cases include:
- Ruff v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 172 Conn. App. 699 (2017)โaffirmed the trial courtโs preclusion of plaintiffโs nursing expert and grant of directed verdict in medical negligence case.
- Milton v. Robinson, 131 Conn. App. 760 (2011)โaffirmed the trial courtโs preclusion of the plaintiffsโ expert and a grant of summary judgment in a case alleging injury from a clinical drug trial.
- Votre v. County Obstetrics and Gynecology Group P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569 (2009)โaffirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of medical treatment.
- Earlington v. Anastasi, 293 Conn. 194 (2009)โobtained on appeal a substantial reduction in economic damages in a birth-injury case.
- Sherwood v Danbury Hospital, 278 Conn. 163 (2006)โ established that a hospital has no duty to obtain the plaintiffโs informed consent for blood transfusion.
- Cohen v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 260 Conn. 747 (2002)โleft intact the trial courtโs substantial reduction in damages awarded in a case involving delayed diagnosis of cancer.
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 (1997)โestablished that a CUTPA claim cannot be made against a hospital in a lawsuit alleging negligent medical treatment.