Connecticut court upholds doctors' right to pay only part of jury award

Some lawyers say the ruling isn't clear on whether a physician who is partially at fault must show what another defendant did wrong.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Nov. 6, 2006.

Physicians say a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling reinforces tort reforms intended to hold defendant doctors financially responsible for only their share of fault in a medical liability lawsuit.

For the internist at the center of the case, Robert S. Goldsmith, MD, the court's decision means that he won't be responsible for a $16 million judgment against him. Instead, he will get a new trial and be able to tell a jury that another doctor named in the lawsuit, internist O. Joseph Bizzozero, MD, settled before trial and shared responsibility in treating a patient who died after surgery.

Consequently, Dr. Goldsmith also will be able to argue that he should not be responsible for the full amount the plaintiff is asking for in the lawsuit. He was not allowed to do that in the first trial.

The high court's ruling reaffirms Connecticut's 1986 and 1995 joint and several liability reforms that were intended to ensure that defendants are held responsible for only their share of the blame in medical liability lawsuits, said Cameron C. Staples, counsel to the Connecticut State Medical Society. Connecticut is one of nearly 40 states that allow such apportionment claims.

The fact that the high court ordered a new trial "is a pretty strong statement about the importance of an apportionment claim on the outcome of a case," Staples said. The doctors group did not take a position in the lawsuit.

Vita Carlson sued Drs. Goldsmith and Bizzozero and Waterbury Hospital in Connecticut in 1995 after her husband, Gary Carlson, had a heart attack and died two days after hip replacement surgery.