Background
Scott Case, a resident of an intermediate-care facility operated by the Connecticut Institute for the Blind, doing business as Oak Hill, used a BiPAP machine at night to treat sleep apnea. Oak Hill’s care guidelines required checks at least every half hour to ensure that the mask was in place, the tubing was clear, and Case was breathing properly.
Case was found unresponsive in bed in the early morning of May 23, 2016. His estate alleged that the BiPAP machine had been malfunctioning, that Oak Hill staff failed to perform required checks and lacked adequate training, and that staff delayed emergency measures. A jury found Oak Hill’s negligence and reckless disregard of Case’s patient rights caused his death, awarding $4 million in noneconomic damages and $6 million in punitive damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. It declined to review Oak Hill’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on causation, recklessness, and life expectancy because Oak Hill did not timely file a written motion to set aside the verdict seeking judgment under its earlier directed-verdict motion. Under the applicable Practice Book rules, the trial court’s reservation of decision on the directed-verdict motion was treated as a denial once the case went to the jury.
The court also held that Oak Hill failed to preserve its limitations defense because the trial court never decided that defense on the merits. It declined to review Oak Hill’s remaining arguments concerning wrongful-death exclusivity, vicarious liability for recklessness, and the amended complaint because its appellate briefing did not address the dispositive grounds on which the trial court rejected those claims.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging a civil jury verdict for evidentiary insufficiency must timely pursue the required postverdict motion.
- Reserving decision on a directed-verdict motion does not leave that motion pending after a jury verdict.
- Appellate review is unavailable when an issue was not decided below or the appellant fails to address the trial court’s dispositive reasoning.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Connecticut’s postverdict filing deadlines carry real consequences. A party that wants appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence must use the prescribed written procedure within the required time, even if it previously moved for a directed verdict at trial.
It also illustrates the need for appellate briefs to confront the actual basis of the trial court’s ruling, rather than merely restating arguments rejected below.