Connors v. University Associates In Obstetrics & Gynecology, Inc.

4 F.3D 123 (2nd Cir. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

After a surgery to help her become pregnant, Connors (P) lost all function in her left leg. P's experts operated on a theory that the retractor used to keep the incision open had impinged on a nerve leading to P's left leg. Experts on both sides agreed that the retractor was used correctly but disagreed over whether the injury could have occurred even if defendant doctors (D) had been careful with the retractor. Defense testified that P's nerve was abnormally positioned. The first trial judge refused to charge the jury with res ipsa loquitur. After a verdict for D, the judge granted a new trial on grounds that he erred in not granting a res ipsa loquitur charge. D moved for a new trial arguing that res ipsa loquitur charge was an error. After the second trial and a verdict for P, D appealed on the following issues (1) that expert testimony on causation was given, (2) P introduced direct evidence on the cause of the injury and that when such evidence is introduced it would be error for the court to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur.