Deborah Thibault v. Tracey Ann Johnson et al. (2011)

Caption Date:

DECISION RE MOTION FOR ADDITUR

Following a jury trial and verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a motion for additur and argues that the jury's mistake as to the amount of economic damages to be awarded is manifest.   The defendant objects to any additur of the economic damages.

The Interrogatories submitted to the jury required the jury to identify the treatment provider for whom they were awarding economic damages;  the dates of treatment and the amount awarded for such treatment.   As to the physical therapy at St. Vincent's, the jury awarded for treatment dates of “9–27–06 to 11–1–06” and damages in the amount of “$2,201 .00.”

The plaintiff argues that the bills submitted for the time period identified on the verdict total $2,762.00, and so therefore, the jury's simple calculation error is manifest.

This court is guided by Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (2000), and its progeny.   Faced with a motion for additur, the trial court should test the jury's verdict “in light of the circumstances of the particular case before it” and “should examine the evidence to decide whether the jury reasonably could have found that the plaintiff had failed in his proof of the issue.   That decision should be made, not on the assumption that the jury made a mistake, but, rather, on the supposition that the jury did exactly what it intended to do.”  Id. 188–89.

While the court agrees that the plaintiff's assessment is logical in light of the Interrogatory and the medical bills submitted, it is still speculative.   Here, the jury's award is not outside the “necessarily uncertain limits of just damages [such that it] shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by ․ mistake ․” Birgel v. Heintz, 163 Conn. 23, 27–28 (1972).

The Interrogatory to the jury instructed them as follows:

“[S]tate the amount you award as economic damages for any reasonable and necessary expense incurred for such treatment by stating below the name of each healthcare provider, the date(s) of service and the amount you find reasonable and necessary (use as many or as few entries as you find necessary):”

This case involved hotly contested claims regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.   It was for the jury to evaluate the evidence as to the nature of the accident and the causally related treatment and injuries.   See, Vetre v. Keene, 181 Conn. 136 (1980).

The medical bills at issue were submitted without any explanation as to the various entries.   The jury may well have had unanswered questions impacting the extent to which the bills would be awarded as economic damages.   The jury was not required to accept and award the full amount of the charges.   In sum, the jury is charged with determining that which was “reasonable and necessary” in awarding economic damages.   Simply because the amount is lower than the charges incurred for the dates identified does not render the verdict invalid.¹

The motion for additur is denied.

K. Dooley, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The interrogatories to the jury were submitted so that collateral source issues could be addressed in the event of a plaintiff's verdict, See, Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (2004), not so that the reasoning and decision making of the jury might be subject to post-verdict speculation and argument..  FN1. The interrogatories to the jury were submitted so that collateral source issues could be addressed in the event of a plaintiff's verdict, See, Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (2004), not so that the reasoning and decision making of the jury might be subject to post-verdict speculation and argument.

Dooley, Kari A., J.