191 Conn.App. 251
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Scott underwent spinal cord stimulator surgery by Dr. Kanev in May 2007 and suffered a spinal cord injury that left him paralyzed from the waist down; he sued for medical malpractice alleging breaches in needle placement and technique.
- Postoperatively the plaintiff experienced severe neuropathic (pudendal) pain; a syrinx developed in his spinal cord by 2008, was drained in 2009, and by 2011 his pain had substantially resolved.
- Defendants disclosed an expert (Dr. Levy) who would testify that the syrinx and its drainage, more likely than not, explained the pain resolution; plaintiff moved in limine to exclude this “syrinx” evidence as improper benefits evidence under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920 and as outside the pleadings.
- Trial court allowed the syrinx evidence for the purpose of assessing the plaintiff’s loss-of-enjoyment damages (not as § 920 benefits evidence) and declined the plaintiff’s requested limiting and burden-shifting jury instructions.
- Jury interrogatories first asked whether Dr. Kanev breached the standard of care; the jury found no negligence and returned a verdict for defendants, so it never reached causation or damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of syrinx evidence | Syrinx evidence is impermissible “benefits” evidence under Restatement § 920, outside the pleadings and contrary to public policy | Evidence admissible to show plaintiff’s current condition for loss-of-enjoyment damages (not § 920 benefits) | Court allowed evidence; on appeal ruled any error harmless because jury found no breach and never reached damages |
| Jury instruction on syrinx evidence burden | Court should have instructed defendants bore burden to prove syrinx caused pain resolution and would not have resolved absent negligence | No special burden; plaintiff already bears burden on damages; court’s instructions sufficient | Court declined requested instruction; appellate court found no harmful error given jury’s liability finding |
| Whether syrinx evidence permeated trial and affected liability determination | Evidence permeated trial and could have influenced jury’s view of necessity/risk, affecting breach analysis | Trial was dominated by liability-oriented expert disputes; syrinx evidence did not drive breach arguments | Appellate court: syrinx evidence did not permeate trial and record shows defendants did not use it to defend liability; no reasonable probability of affecting result |
| Harmlessness standard when jury does not reach damages | Admission/instructional errors were harmful because jury sequence unclear and interrogatories were mishandled | Any alleged evidentiary/instructional errors are harmless because jury found no breach and never reached damages | Errors, if any, were harmless; presumption jury followed instruction to decide liability first; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allison v. Manetta, 284 Conn. 389 (discusses burden to show harmfulness of instructional error)
- Kalams v. Giacchetto, 268 Conn. 244 (evidentiary error is harmless when jury finds no breach and does not reach causation/damages)
- Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 298 Conn. 371 (standard for whether an improper ruling likely affected the result in civil cases)
- Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (breach and causation can be intertwined such that exclusion of evidence affecting causation may impact breach)
- Phaneuf v. Berselli, 119 Conn. App. 330 (instructional error regarding causation harmless where jury found for defendant on liability)
- Pin v. Kramer, 119 Conn. App. 33 (jury instruction and sequence issues; presumption that jury follows court instructions)
- Barbosa v. Osborne, 237 Md. App. 1 (example where improperly admitted evidence pervaded trial and appellate court found harm)