Kuehl v. Koskoff, 182 Conn. App. 505

Background

On June 26, 1991 Guenther Kuehl (decedent) was in an automobile collision; he later suffered an aortic dissection and died on November 14, 1992. Decedent and his wife Sylvia Kuehl each signed retainers with Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder for claims arising from the collision.
Decedent filed a pro se workers’ compensation notice in December 1991; his employer Z‑Loda and its carrier Travelers contested the claim (work nexus and causation). The defendants (Koskoff and the firm) pursued a personal injury suit against the tortfeasors and settled that case.
The plaintiff (Sylvia) did not file a formal notice for survivor’s benefits within one year of the decedent’s death as required by § 31‑294c(a); the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, Review Board, and Connecticut Supreme Court held her untimely and barred.
Sylvia sued the defendants for legal malpractice and breach of contract, alleging they failed to advise her to file a timely survivor’s claim or refer her to a workers’ compensation lawyer; she claimed lost survivor’s benefits (over $1M).
At trial plaintiff presented an expert (Willcutts) in personal injury and workers’ compensation who testified about standard of care and defendant errors but did not opine that, more likely than not, a timely workers’ compensation/survivor claim would have succeeded. A jury found for plaintiff; court denied defendants’ post‑verdict motions.
On appeal the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed, holding plaintiff failed to present required expert proof of causation (the case‑within‑a‑case): expert testimony was required to show the plaintiff would have prevailed on the contested workers’ compensation issues (course of employment and causation) and thus obtained survivor’s benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert proof of causation was required in this malpractice action	Kuehl argued the jury could infer causation from the record and expert testimony on standard of care; no separate expert showing ultimate success in workers’ comp was necessary	Koskoff argued plaintiff needed a case‑within‑a‑case and expert testimony that, more likely than not, a commissioner would have awarded survivor’s benefits but for the defendants’ negligence	Required: plaintiff failed to present expert testimony that it was more likely than not she would have prevailed on the underlying workers’ compensation/survivor claim; judgment reversed for defendants
Whether the jury could decide compensability under workers’ compensation without specialized expert testimony	Kuehl contended the jury could apply ordinary proximate‑cause principles and infer a causal chain from the medical and other evidence	Koskoff argued workers’ compensation issues (coming‑and‑going rule, statutory/regulatory framework) are technical and beyond lay jury knowledge, requiring an expert	Held: issues of whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment are technical and normally for the commissioner; expert testimony was necessary to connect malpractice to damages
Whether plaintiff proved standard of care and breach through her expert	Kuehl relied on Willcutts’ testimony that defendants deviated from the standard of care by failing to file/advise on workers’ comp claims	Koskoff argued the expert testified to personal preferences and not the governing standard, and in any event did not tie breach to likelihood of recovery	Held: court accepted that plaintiff offered evidence on standard/breach, but the appeal was resolved on causation failure, so standard/breach sufficiency not dispositive
Whether comparative negligence allocation affected liability judgment on remand	Kuehl argued the jury properly apportioned some fault to her for not following advice to consult comp counsel	Koskoff argued comparative fault did not cure the absence of causation proof	Held: appellate decision reversed entire plaintiff verdict for failure of causation proof; comparative negligence issue need not be addressed further

Key Cases Cited

Bozelko v. Papastavros, 323 Conn. 275 (Conn. 2016) (expert testimony generally required to prove causation in legal malpractice)
Grimm v. Fox, 303 Conn. 322 (Conn. 2012) (plaintiff must prove what would have happened in underlying action—case‑within‑a‑case)
Kuehl v. Z‑Loda Sys. Eng’g, Inc., 265 Conn. 525 (Conn. 2003) (workers’ comp survivor’s claim timeliness and jurisdictional bar)
St. Paul Travelers Cos. v. Kuehl, 299 Conn. 800 (Conn. 2011) (related procedural/standing issues arising from the collision litigation)
Vona v. Lerner, 72 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2002) (expert must assist trier of fact on standard and proximate cause; speculative testimony insufficient)