Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith v. Yale University

Date: 07-23-2004

Case Number: Unknown

Judge: Unknown

Court: Superior Court, Waterbury County, Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Joseph D. Garrison of Garrison Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, P.C., New Haven, Connecticut

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description:

Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith claimed that Yale University retaliated against them for complaining about poor pateint care and mismanagment of the radiology department at the Medical School hospital. They claimed that non-specialist were interpreting diagnostic studies and teaching physicians approved studies interpreted by residents without checking their accuracy, a violation of Medicare rules and the standard of care. They claimed that Yale responed by cutting their pay and removing them from their leadership positions. Smith quit. They claimed that yale violated their right to freedom of speech and academic freedom by retaliating against them.

Yale claimed the doctors were disgruntled and were protecting their positions, income and authority.

Outcome:
Plaintiffs' verdict for $5.5 million.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith v. Yal...?

The outcome was: Plaintiffs' verdict for $5.5 million.

Which court heard Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith v. Yal...?

This case was heard in Superior Court, Waterbury County, Connecticut, CT. The presiding judge was Unknown.

Who were the attorneys in Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith v. Yal...?

Plaintiff's attorney: Joseph D. Garrison of Garrison Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, P.C., New Haven, Connecticut. Defendant's attorney: Unknown.

When was Arthur Rosenfield, Morton Burrell and Robert Smith v. Yal... decided?

This case was decided on July 23, 2004.