Case Name: William H. Foster v. Smithkline Corporation et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1989-03-28
Citations: 18 Conn. App. 133
Docket Number: 6569
Parties: William H. Foster v. Smithkline Corporation et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
William H. Foster v. Smithkline Corporation et al.
(6569)
Spallone, O’Connell and Foti, Js.
Argued March 15
decision released March 28, 1989
Alice S. Miskimin, with whom, on the brief, was Herbert Watstein, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Jackson J. O’Keefe, with whom, on the brief, was Maureen Sullivan Dinnan, for the appellee (defendant Pacifico G. Flores, Jr.).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered after the court directed a defendants' verdict. He claims the trial court erred (1) in excluding certain hospital records and medical reports, (2) in excluding testimony from the plaintiffs expert concerning causation of gynecomastia, (3) in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint, (4) in excluding from evidence an authoritive medical study used by the plaintiff's treating physician, and (5) in directing a verdict for the defendant.
The claims of error pressed by the plaintiff implicate the discretionary powers of the trial court. Our review fails to disclose any abuse of such discretion.
There is no error.