Sabatini and Associates, LLC

Attorney James Sabatini has reached another settlement for his client involved in a car accident that left little visible property damage.  Cases involving little visible property damage are challenging.  The lack of visible property damage provides the defense lawyer with a simple and easy argument- if there is no significant property damage, how can there be a real injury?  There are multiple ways in which to counter such an argument.  One, while there may be little visible property damage, has there been an inspection of the vehicle behind the bumper cover.  In many instances, the damage from the collision is covered by the bumper guard. Two, did anyone hear a noise caused by the impact? If the answer is yes, then the impact was significant enough to cause a noise. Three, did the impact cause the body of the occupant of the vehicle to be moved. If yes, then the impact was significant and real. Four, was the defendant surprised by the lack of damage to his car. If yes, then the impact was significant. Five, did the injured person have any prior injuries/accidents or subsequent injuries/accidents involving the same body part claimed to be injured in the present collision. If the answer is no, it is a powerful argument that through a process of elimination, only the subject collision could have caused the injuries. Six, do you have a credible doctor supporting the person’s claim of injury? If you do  not, the chances of success are seriously if utterly damaged.  These are some but not all of the items used to take a case that is perceived to be weak by the insurance company and transform itin to a case of strength resulting either in a strong settlement or well positioned for a successful outcome at trial.

The DePuy Hip Implant litigation continues to grow. In December 2010, the court approved a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for the cases filed in federal court. State class actions cases have been filed in Ohio and California.  In August 2010, Depuy recalled 93,000 hip implants.  The hip implants have a higher failure rate than other hip replacement devices. One out of eight patients has had to undergo a second hip replacement surgery due to the defective implant. Besides the high failure rate, the device also may cause elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in the body which can develop into metallosis – a buildup of metallic debris in soft tissues. It is believed that the metal on metal design of the hip implant is causing the metallosis.

Attorney James Sabatini has prevailed before the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case entitled Shortell v. Cavanagh.  The case involved injuries suffered by a client during a dental procedure.  The injuries involve significant nerve damage.  A complaint was filed against the dentist and the complaint alleged failure to obtain informed consent. Defendant moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that a written opinion letter from a similar health care provider was not attached to the complaint.  Attorney Sabatini objected to the motion on the grounds that the statute (C.G.S. Sec. 52-190a) requiring a written opinion letter to be attached to medical malpractice lawsuits does not apply to informed consent claims.  The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.  Attorney Sabatini appealed and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with Attorney Sabatini’s legal position.  The Court held that 52-190a does not apply to a claim of lack of informed consent. The statute only applies to medical negligence claims and medical negligence claims as that term is used in 52-190a only pertain to claims where the standard of care and deviations from the standard of care are established and judged by an expert standard.  Informed consent claims are judged by a lay standard.

Do Connecticut towns and cities want to be held responsible for their negligence that causes serious injuries to their residents? – Apparently not.  The Connecticut legislature is currently considering legislation that would provide immunity from lawsuits to municipalities that open their land to the public for recreational use.  Private citizens and businesses have to act with reasonable care when maintaining their property.  Towns and citizens should be held to the same standard.  If not, then what is the incentive for government employees to maintain public property so that it is reasonably safe for people to enjoy?  For better or worse, financial incentives to maintain property is the best mechanism to ensure that our municipalities are taking care of our parks, school grounds and other public areas.

This past week Attorney James Sabatini argued a case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.  The case involved a failure to obtain informed consent claim brought by the firm on behalf of our client against an oral surgeon.  Our client alleged that he suffered nerve damage as result of a tooth implant procedure and that prior to the procedure the doctor failed to disclose the material risk of nerve damage to him.  The issue before the CT Supreme Court was whether a failure to obtain informed consent cause of action required a written opinion letter pursuant to C.G.S. Section 52-190a to be attached to the lawsuit.  Attorney Sabatini argued that the statute did not apply to failure to obtain informed consent claims since such a claim is judged on a lay standard versus an expert standard.