200 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiffs William Maldonado and Geovanni Hernandez were rear‑ended in a 2016 motor vehicle collision; both claimed neck and back injuries and sought damages.
- At jury trial the jury awarded past (and some future) economic damages for medical costs to both plaintiffs but awarded zero noneconomic damages (pain and suffering).
- Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for additurs asking the trial court to add $8,000 for Maldonado and $6,500 for Hernandez; the trial court granted the motion, finding the verdict internally inconsistent (economic but no noneconomic awards).
- Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by ordering additurs without identifying the specific record facts required under Wichers v. Hatch and that credibility/inconsistency issues supported the jury’s zero noneconomic awards.
- The appellate court reversed: the trial court failed to identify the specific factual basis for additurs, and on the merits the jury reasonably could have found plaintiffs failed to prove compensable pain and suffering given conflicting testimony, preexisting degenerative conditions, and credibility problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted additurs after a jury awarded economic but no noneconomic damages | Maldonado/Hernandez: medical treatment awards show compensable pain; the jury’s zero noneconomic award was unreasonable and internally inconsistent, so additurs were warranted | Flannery: trial court failed to identify the specific record facts required by Wichers; the jury could reasonably award medical bills yet reject pain claims based on credibility and evidence | Reversed. Trial court abused its discretion because it did not identify the specific facts in the record justifying additurs under Wichers |
| Whether a jury may reasonably award economic damages but zero noneconomic damages based on the evidence | Plaintiffs: receipt of and payment for medical treatment implies pain and suffering; treatments were reasonable and necessary | Defendants: testimony was inconsistent; plaintiffs had preexisting degenerative conditions and credibility issues; jury could reject noneconomic claims | Held: The jury reasonably could conclude plaintiffs failed to prove noneconomic damages given conflicting evidence and credibility issues |
| Proper standard of review and remedy when reviewing an additur | Plaintiffs: trial court has discretion to increase inadequate verdicts | Defendants: appellate review must view evidence in light most favorable to sustaining jury verdict and require trial court to articulate factual basis for additur | Held: Trial court must cite specific record facts justifying additur (per Wichers); appellate court reviews whether those facts justify overturning jury; here, no adequate factual identification, so additurs reversed and jury verdict reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (case‑specific standard for setting aside verdicts as legally inadequate; trial court must identify factual basis for additur)
- Cusano v. Lajoie, 178 Conn. App. 605 (trial court abused discretion by ordering additur without identifying supporting record passages)
- Turner v. Pascarelli, 88 Conn. App. 720 (Wichers requires trial court to identify facts that justify additur)
- Demchak v. New Haven, 93 Conn. App. 309 (statutory framework for additur overview)
- Micalizzi v. Stewart, 181 Conn. App. 671 (awarding medical expenses does not automatically require pain awards)
- Melendez v. Deleo, 159 Conn. App. 414 (same: economic awards do not compel noneconomic awards)
- Wall System, Inc. v. Pompa, 324 Conn. 718 (trier of fact has exclusive province to resolve witness credibility and inconsistencies)