159 Conn.App. 414
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- April 19, 2012 two‑car collision in Waterbury; jury found defendant 60% at fault and plaintiff 40% comparatively negligent.
- Jury awarded 100% of plaintiff’s past medical bills, past wages, and property damage, but awarded zero noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages and no future medical expenses.
- Plaintiff moved for additur and/or to set aside the verdict; trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for the defendant.
- Trial evidence included: minimal objective findings in contemporaneous ambulance and ER records, normal imaging (hip X‑ray, pelvic images, head CT), primary care visit with full range of motion, and later chiropractic care diagnosing chronic complaints and assigning a 6% lumbar impairment.
- Plaintiff’s treatment after chiropractic care ceased ~November 2012; she increased work hours after returning to work and did not seek further medical care before trial; credibility and inconsistencies in subjective complaints were central to the jury’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict awarding only economic damages but no noneconomic damages is legally inadequate and requires additur or a new trial | Melendez: awarding past economic damages without any noneconomic damages was a legal mistake; the jury should have awarded noneconomic damages based on chiropractic expert and plaintiff’s testimony | Deleo: the jury reasonably credited contemporaneous medical records and discredited subjective later complaints; no legal error in zero noneconomic award | Court: No abuse of discretion. Under Wichers line, zero noneconomic damages is evaluated case‑by‑case; record supported jury’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove noneconomic damages with reasonable certainty |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (2000) (trial courts must examine the record case‑by‑case when jury awards economic damages but zero noneconomic damages)
- Fileccia v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 92 Conn. App. 481 (2005) (applies Wichers standard; trial court’s denial of additur reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Expressway Assocs. II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Conn., 218 Conn. 474 (1991) (plaintiff bears burden to prove noneconomic damages with reasonable certainty)
- Medes v. GEICO Corp., 97 Conn. App. 630 (2006) (jury verdict awarding only economic damages can be within fair and reasonable limits)
- Schroeder v. Triangulum Assocs., 259 Conn. 325 (2002) (distinguishes cases where invasive surgery or objective injury makes zero noneconomic award implausible)
- Snell v. Beamon, 82 Conn. App. 141 (2004) (supports additur where testimony showed significant pain and suffering)
- Lombardi v. Cobb, 99 Conn. App. 705 (2007) (additur discussion; factual details affect applicability)