The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Malpractice Victim’s $3.1 Million Post-judgment Interest Not Tied to Treasury Bonds

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Larry Bodine
interest rate

Post-judgment interest is allowed in federal courts from the date of the judgment until the judgment is paid in full.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled a trial court did not err in awarding the a medical malpractice victim post-judgment interest of $3.1 million dollars in addition to her $9.25 million dollar recovery.

The court stated it was the legislature’s job to consider fluctuating interest rates on non-risk investments through the United States Treasury.

The plaintiff, Michelle DiLieto filed a medical malpractice suit against County Obstetrics and Gynecology Group, Dr. Scott Casper, and Yale University Medical School.

DiLieto visited County Obstetrics & Gynecology and the defendants wrongfully removed her reproductive organs and pelvic lymph nodes.

This case traveled to the Connecticut state supreme court, which remanded it to the lower court for a determination of post-judgment interest. This case is the fourth round of appeals.

Legally Withholding Payment Irrelevant

At the trial, the plaintiff filed a motion for post-judgment interest. The lower court denied the request, stating the defendants were entitled to withhold payment of the award while the case was pending appeal.

See also:

440,000 Deaths Annually from Preventable Hospital Mistakes

The state supreme court believed the trial court erred by denying the motion. Additionally, the defendant’s legal right to withhold payment of the underlying legal claim was irrelevant to whether the plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest under Connecticut General Statute § 37-3b.

Post-judgment interest is allowed in federal courts from the date of the judgment until the judgment is paid in full. The trial court stated, following Supreme Court precedent, the paramount factor to consider is the purpose of the interest.

The purpose is to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of use of the money owed from the date of the judgment until the date the judgment is paid in full.

On remand, the trial court awarded the plaintiff a fair interest rate of eight percent on the underlying judgment from January 2006 to October 2010 for $3.1 million dollars. She was also awarded an additional three percent starting from October 2010 on the post-judgment interest award because the case was pending for four years.

No Link to Treasury Securities

At this turn, the defendants renewed their original arguments that the trial court improperly considered the rate of return on certain investments and disagreed with the date the interest began to calculate.

The defendants argued the trial court should have assigned the interest rate based on the rates of return on investments, exclusively on risk-free investments such as US Treasury securities and not from other investments.

Disagreeing with this argument, the court states if the legislature had intended to link the rates of US treasury securities to post-judgment interest then it would have expressed that intent.

Next, the court addressed the defendant’s second argument. The defendants believed they were only responsible for the interest from the date they were ordered to pay the interest, which was November 2013—not October 2010.

The court agreed, stating the important practical question was what date the actual legal duty arose to pay. In November 2013, the plaintiff’s amended motion for post-judgment interest was decided. Thus, the post-judgment interest was payable from that date.

The appellate court remanded reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision on the post-judgment interst, to recalculate the three percent interest from November 2013 instead of October 2010. The court affirmed the eight percent post-judgment interest award for January 2006 to October 2010.

This case is Michele DiLieto Et Al. v. County Obstetrics And Gynecology Group, P.C. Et Al. 316 Conn. 790 (May 2015).

See Also: $7.3 Million Verdict Upheld for Arizona Woman

See: No Retroactive Tort Reform in Florida Medical Malpractice Suit

 

Posted in Blog, Medical Malpractice

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Boy Scouts of America and The Hartford Enter $650 Million Settlement for Sex Abuse Claims

Boy Scouts of America and The Hartford Enter $650 Million Settlement for Sex Abuse Claims

After years of legal dispute, The Hartford has entered into a settlement agreement and release with the Boy Scouts [Read More...]
Playland Operator Reaches $12 Million Bankruptcy Settlement

Playland Operator Reaches $12 Million Bankruptcy Settlement

The Westchester County Board of Legislators last week approved a bankruptcy court settlement with Standard Amusements regardi[Read More...]
Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

The board of the Santa Fe city and county’s joint Buckman Direct Diversion agreed to a $36 million settlement last wee[Read More...]
Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

A Rancho Cordova health insurance company has repaid $97.2 million to settle an investigation into inflated claims submitted [Read More...]
Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

On May 4 - 7, 2021, The National Trial Lawyers will present the 10th annual Trial Lawyers Summit, hosted at the Loews Mi[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.