Ancheff v. Hartford Hosp.,
No. 16617 (Conn. July 9, 2002)

A patient brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital for injuries he allegedly suffered arising from an improperly administered drug program. The plaintiff claimed that the hospital had improperly conducted clinical trials and study procedures, failed to inform the patient that he was a participant in such a trial and obtain his informed consent, and failed to explain to him the experimental nature of his treatment. The trial court found in favor of the hospital. The patient appealed, claiming that the trial court had improperly excluded from evidence a report from the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and that the judge had improperly instructed the jury on the question of the meaning of medical research.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the report from evidence on the grounds that its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. The supreme court also found that the trial court had properly instructed the jury on the question of the meaning of medical research and that the trial court's passing reference to the medical literature, which was one factor in determining whether a program constituted research, did not, as the patient suggested, inform the jury that it could not find that the program constituted research if there was some support for it in the medical literature.