Connecticut Jury Clears Doctor in Malpractice Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
In a medical malpractice lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in Milford, Connecticut, John Fitzpatrick sued a doctor and his employer for injuries he claimed resulted from their negligence. The Plaintiff's lawsuit, which was filed on December 14, 2021, accused Dr. Joel W. Malin and the Orthopaedic Specialty Group, P.C. of professional carelessness and malpractice. The complaint claimed that Dr. Malin's medical care had not met the accepted standard of care, leading to the Plaintiff's harm. Before the lawsuit had been officially filed, Mr. Fitzpatrick's legal team petitioned the Court for a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations, which the Court had granted in May 2021. This meant the Plaintiff's claim, which concerned medical care that had occurred some time before the lawsuit was filed, was still able to move forward.
Cause
The complaint against the Defendants hinged on the claim that their professional medical care was negligent and careless. The Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Malin and the Orthopaedic Specialty Group, P.C. had not followed the established standard of care for medical professionals. While the Court documents did not provide specific details on the medical procedures at issue, the lawsuit made it clear that the Plaintiffs believed the Defendants' actions, or lack of action, were the direct cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and losses.
Injury
As a result of the Defendants' alleged carelessness, the Plaintiff, John Fitzpatrick, claimed he suffered serious and permanent injuries. The lawsuit stated that he had experienced pain, suffering, disabilities, and losses that he believed were directly caused by the medical negligence. The complaint also noted that he had incurred expenses for medical care and treatment because of his injuries. The full extent of his specific injuries remained unclear from the provided Court documents.
Damages Sought
John Fitzpatrick sought monetary damages from the Defendants for the harm he suffered. He had asked the Court to award him financial compensation to cover the costs of his injuries, including medical expenses and any other losses he had incurred. The complaint did not specify an exact monetary amount he was seeking, instead asking the Court to determine the appropriate amount based on the evidence presented at trial.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): John Fitzpatrick
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Brian J. Mongelluzzo
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Glenn Whitted
Defendant(s): Joel W. Malin, MD | Orthopaedic Specialty Group, P.C.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Vimala B. Ruszkowski
Experts for Defendant(s): Linda I. Suleiman | Ruben Kier | Stephen Nelson | Joel Malin
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiffs’ legal team argued that the Defendants' medical care fell below the required standard of care. They asserted that Dr. Malin's professional choices were a substantial factor in the Plaintiff’s injuries. The defense, in its answer to the complaint, consistently denied all allegations of professional carelessness. The Defendants' legal team had admitted that Dr. Malin was an employee of the Orthopaedic Specialty Group and that he had performed surgery on the Plaintiff, but they strongly denied that his medical care was in any way negligent.
Claims
The lawsuit's main claim was for medical negligence. The Plaintiffs accused the Defendants of failing to provide the level of care that a reasonable and careful doctor would have provided under the same circumstances. The complaint pointed to the Defendants' alleged failure to meet the standard of care as the direct reason for the Plaintiff's injuries.
Defense
The Defendants' answer presented a strong counter-argument. They directly denied the central accusation of the case, which was that Dr. Malin had deviated from the standard of care. They also denied that their actions were the cause of any harm to Mr. Fitzpatrick. While they admitted to certain facts, like their professional relationship and that Dr. Malin had treated the Plaintiff, they insisted that their care had been proper and that any injuries the Plaintiff suffered were not their fault.
Jury Verdict
After considering all the evidence and arguments, the jury delivered its verdict on September 10, 2025. The jury found the verdict in favour of the Defendant. Because the jury found for the Defendants, no damages were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Court Documents