Fairfield University, B.A., 1985
Law School Attended:
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1988
Year of First Admission:
Connecticut Superior Court; United States District Court, District of Connecticut; 1988, Connecticut; United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Representative Appellate Cases: Connecticut Appellate Court: Farrell v. Johnson & Johnson, 184 Conn. App. 685, ___ A.3d ___ (2018). Appellate Court affirmed defendant's verdict in this medical malpractice case concerning the issue of informed consent.; Ugalde (Estate of Ugalde) v. Saint Mary's Hosp., Inc., 182 Conn. App. 1, 188 A.3d 787 (2018). Appellate Court affirmed judgment of nonsuit that had entered in favor of the defendant on discovery issues in this medical malpractice case.; Wilkins v. Conn. Childbirth & Women's Ctr., 176 Conn. App. 420, 171 A.3d 88 (2017). Appellate Court affirmed defendant's verdict in this medical malpractice case.; Torres v. Carrese, 149 Conn. App. 596, 90 A.3d 256 (2014). Appellate court affirmed dismissal of negligence claim due to inadequate pre-suit opinion letter and also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant as to informed consent claim in this medical malpractice case,; Friedman v. Meriden Orthopaedic Grp., P.C., 77 Conn. App. 307, 823 A.2d 364 (2003). Appellate Court affirmed defendant's verdict in this medical malpractice case.; Connecticut Supreme Court: Kervick v. Silver Hill Hosp., 309 Conn. 688, 72 A.3d 1044 (2013). Supreme Court reversed Appellate Court and affirmed defendant's verdict in this medical malpractice case. It also exercised its supervisory authority to direct that immediately after they are selected, that all jurors be given either oral or written instructions from the court as to their obligation to avoid media coverage of the case before the start of evidence.; Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky, 280 Conn. 190, 905 A.2d 1135 (2006). Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on statute of limitations in favor of the defendant in this medical malpractice case.; Gould v. Mellick & Sexton, 263 Conn. 140, 819 A.2d 216 (2003). Supreme Court reversed Appellate Court and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant due to lack of duty to third parties to the attorney-client relationship in this legal malpractice case.; Verdicts & Cases: Appellate Court Upholds Jury Verdict For The Defendant: David J. Robertson recently obtained an appellate victory in Farrell v. Johnson & Johnson, 184 Conn. App. 685 (2018) when the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a defendant's verdict.; Dismissal of Connecticut Legal Malpractice Suit Affirmed on Appeal; David Robertson and Christopher Blau obtained a favorable decision from the Connecticut Appellate Court, affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice action. The Appellate Court's decision reaffirms the foundational principles that there are consequences when plaintiffs fail to comply with discovery and that trial court judges have the power to control discovery proceedings. The Appellate Court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's legal malpractice action, especially in light of the plaintiff's lengthy history of noncompliance during discovery.; The plaintiff alleged malpractice after the defendant, a well-respected Connecticut attorney, settled an underlying personal injury action. The attorney representing the plaintiff in the legal malpractice case was a necessary witness in the legal malpractice action because his fee for negotiating a medical lien was claimed as damages in the case. After he failed to comply with a court order that he submit to a deposition, the court entered a judgment of nonsuit in the case. There had been a prior history of discovery disputes and noncompliance by the plaintiff which provided part of the trial court's basis for entering a nonsuit on this occasion.; The issue on appeal concerned whether the court's order to appear for a deposition was clear and whether the severe sanction of nonsuit for violating the court order was appropriate. There was also a secondary issue concerning whether the court should have conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's motion to open the nonsuit in a different fashion.; After briefing and oral argument, the Appellate Court issued a well-reasoned and thorough decision affirming the trial court's actions.