153 Conn.App. 819
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Oct. 20, 2006, Scandariato was struck by Borrelli while proceeding through an intersection; she claimed injuries to neck, spine, shoulders, head and chest and sued for negligence.
- Trial testimony included video deposition of treating neurologist Dr. Anthony Alessi, who diagnosed chronic headaches caused by a neck injury and assigned a 5% permanent partial impairment to the brain (not based on AMA charts for brain).
- Jury awarded economic damages ($10,169.24) and substantial noneconomic damages ($306,296.60), allocating 80% fault to Borrelli and 20% to Scandariato; after reduction plaintiff recovered $253,172.67.
- Borrelli moved posttrial to set aside the verdict and for remittitur, arguing Alessi’s brain impairment rating was improperly admitted, would mislead the jury, and infected the damages award.
- Trial court denied the motion in limine (admitting Alessi’s impairment testimony after reviewing his deposition and qualifications), instructed the jury clarifying that the 5% brain rating related to headaches from a neck injury and excluded any cognitive-loss claim, and denied posttrial relief.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony under State v. Porter, the jury instructions were adequate, the defendant forfeited relevancy/undue-prejudice objections, and the verdict was not excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Porter/Daubert of impairment rating not based on AMA brain charts | Alessi’s experience, treatment of patient, review of records and ability to explain methodology make his rating reliable and fit the case | Rating deviated from AMA and thus required a Porter reliability hearing and exclusion | Court did not abuse discretion: limited Porter gatekeeping satisfied by deposition review, expert qualifications, methodology, and ability to explain; challenge went to weight, not admissibility |
| Relevance / undue prejudice of brain impairment testimony | Testimony was relevant to headaches and permanency; court could cure confusion by instruction | Rating of brain (vs. neck) was illogical, irrelevant, and prejudicial | Claims not addressed on merits because defendant failed to preserve these objections at trial |
| Jury instructions about scope/meaning of impairment rating | Instructions correctly framed that 5% brain rating reflected headaches from neck injury and no cognitive deficit was claimed | Jury could be misled to consider a brain/cognitive injury beyond pleadings | Instructions were adequate, correct in law, and tailored to avoid confusion; not misleading |
| Posttrial relief: set-aside / remittitur based on alleged impact of testimony on damages | Alessi’s testimony improperly inflated noneconomic award and court failed to account for that in denying relief | Evidence (expert, family testimony, life expectancy) supported damages; any error was not shown | Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict supported by evidence and within reasonable range of compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (adoption of Daubert-style gatekeeping; flexible reliability and fit inquiry)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (methodology reliability and relevance standard for expert scientific evidence)
- State v. Pappas, 256 Conn. 854 (distinguishing admissibility of methodology from weight of expert conclusions)
- Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (standard for remittitur and when court should order a remittitur)