Capozziello v. Robinson

924 A.2d 876, 102 Conn. App. 93, 2007 Conn. App. LEXIS 262
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 26, 2007
DocketAC 27026
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 924 A.2d 876 (Capozziello v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Capozziello v. Robinson, 924 A.2d 876, 102 Conn. App. 93, 2007 Conn. App. LEXIS 262 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

[94]*94 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Kenneth Capozziello, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Robyn Robinson, following a jury trial. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court committed plain error in revealing to the jury the existence of collateral sources available to pay his medical expenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs action arose out of personal injuries and damages sustained as a result of an accident involving his motorcycle and the defendant’s vehicle. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) permitted the defendant’s counsel to question the plaintiff on cross-examination as to whether he had medical insurance1 and (2) referenced medical insurance in its charge to the jury.2 The plaintiff concedes that he neither objected to the question by the defendant’s counsel nor took exception to the charge. The plaintiff therefore seeks review of his unpreserved [95]*95claims under the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5. Review under the plain error doctrine “is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172, 838 A.2d 1038, cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913, 852 A.2d 743, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003, 125 S. Ct. 623, 160 L. Ed. 2d 463 (2004).

After reviewing the entire record before us, we conclude that the court did not commit plain error. It is well established that the existence of collateral sources should not be revealed to the jury. General Statutes § 52-225a (b) provides in relevant part that “[u]pon a finding of liability and an awarding of damages by the trier of fact . . . the court shall receive evidence . . . concerning the total amount of collateral sources which have been paid for the benefit of the claimant . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In the present case, the court did not improperly allow evidence of collateral sources to be admitted to the jury. The question by the defendant’s counsel as to whether the plaintiff had medical insurance was neither objected to nor answered. Further, in its charge to the jury, the court simply explained in accordance with § 52-225a (b) that although there were references to medical insurance during trial and in medical bills introduced into evidence by the plaintiff, the jury was not to consider whether the plaintiff had medical insurance in reaching its verdict because the court would adjust the verdict on the basis of any amounts paid by collateral sources. See footnote 2.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McCrea v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.
204 Conn. App. 796 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
924 A.2d 876, 102 Conn. App. 93, 2007 Conn. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capozziello-v-robinson-connappct-2007.