Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CLARENCE O. GODWIN v. DANBURY EYE PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, P.C., ET AL. (SC 16175)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued March 22--officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel

Edward F. Hennessey, with whom was David Thomas Ryan, for the appellant (plaintiff). Augustus R. Southworth III, with whom was Matthew R. Peterson, for the appellee (defendant Vincent S. Reppucci).
Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The plaintiff, Clarence O. Godwin, brought this action against the defendants, Danbury Eye Physicians and Surgeons, P.C., and a physician employed by it, Vincent S. Reppucci, alleging, in four counts: (1) assault and battery; (2) lack of informed consent; (3) medical malpractice; and (4) res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff's allegations arose out of laser eye treatment administered by Reppucci.1 The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered

after a jury verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly: (1) directed a verdict for the defendant with respect to the assault and battery claim; (2) refused to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; and (3) improperly instructed the jury regarding the doctrine of informed consent. We disagree with the plaintiff's first two claims and agree with his third claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and order a new trial limited to the plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent.2 The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The plaintiff was referred to the defendant, an ophthalmologist and retina vitreous specialist, who diagnosed a macular degeneration of the left eye, an age-related condition that impairs one's vision. The defendant recommended laser photocoagulation, a laser treatment designed to prevent the degeneration. The defendant explained the risks, benefits and alternatives of the treatment to the plaintiff. In particular, the defendant explained that the laser treatment would require the plaintiff to sit in front of a laser machine so that a laser could be directed into his eye. In order to direct the laser accurately and immobilize the eye, the retrobulbar cavity, the area behind the eyeball, would be injected with anesthesia, a procedure known as ``retrobulbar anesthesia.'' The defendant's explanation of the anesthesia procedure included the fact that a significant loss of vision could result. The plaintiff gave his written consent to the procedure, which included a form entitled, ``Permission for Operation and/or Procedure and Anesthesia.'' On April 10, 1992, the defendant administered the retrobulbar anesthesia. Prior to the procedure, the plaintiff inquired into the use of the retrobulbar needle and was told that it would be used to anesthetize the eye. After the plaintiff's eye was anesthetized, the defendant performed the laser treatment (first procedure). After this first procedure, the plaintiff's condition worsened and, as a result, the defendant recommended a second treatment. The plaintiff orally consented to this treatment and understood that it would be the same as the first procedure, including the administration of the retrobulbar anesthesia. The defendant testified that the plaintiff had signed a written consent form, however, that form was not in the medical file at the time of trial. On April 28, 1992, the plaintiff came in for the second treatment (second procedure). During the administration of the retrobulbar anesthesia, the needle perforated the globe of the plaintiff's eyeball. As a result, the plaintiff's vision was damaged permanently. The plaintiff thereafter brought this action. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant on the first

count of the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged assault and battery. After the conclusion of the evidence by both parties, the trial court instructed the jury regarding the second and third counts of the complaint, which alleged lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, respectively. The trial court, however, refused to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which was alleged in the fourth count of the complaint. The jury returned a general verdict in the defendant's favor. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court denied this motion and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes

Download Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians & Surgeons, P.C..pdf

Connecticut Law