Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Conn. App. 133

Foster v. Smithkline Corp.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 28, 1989

Connecticut Appellate Court · decided 1989-03-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1989

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-03-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1In this malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered after the court directed a defendants’ verdict. He claims the trial court *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.

¶2The 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.

¶3There is no error.

/18/connapp/133 · .json · Public domain