Opinion
No. CV 05-4007783 S
February 19, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT
This action alleged medical malpractice by Dr. William H. Ramsey and his practice, Connecticut Gastroenterology Consultants, PC stemming from Dr. Ramsey's diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff after her complaints of abdominal pain and constipation. The jury resolved the issues in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff asks the court to set aside the verdict. She argues that the evidence presented by her expert witness was sufficient for the jury to find in her favor, and that the jury could not have reasonably and legally concluded as it did.
The legal standards for setting aside a jury verdict are well-settled. The trial court possesses the inherent power to set aside the jury's verdict if the court is of the opinion the verdict is against the law or the evidence. Howard v. MacDonald, 270 Conn. 111, 126 (2004). The trial court must view the evidence offered at trial in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services, 249 Conn. 523, 534 (1999). The ultimate test is whether given the evidence offered at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; Herb v. Kerr, 190 Conn. 136, 140 (1983); the jury reasonably could have concluded as it did. Id.
There are serious constitutional issues posed by setting aside a jury verdict. This is so because litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of fact decided by the jury. A trial court's decision to set aside a jury verdict can implicate a party's constitutional right to a trial by jury. Young v. Data Switch Corp., 231 Conn. 95, 100-01 (1994); Zarelli v. Barnum, 6 Conn.App. 322, 326 (1986); Bambus v. Bridgeport Gas Co., 148 Conn. 167, 169 (1961). "The right to a jury trial is fundamental in our judicial system, and . . . the right is one obviously immovable limitation on the legal discretion of the court to set aside a verdict, since the constitutional right of a trial by jury includes the right to have issues of fact as to which there is room for reasonable difference of opinion among fair-minded men passed upon by the jury and not by the court." Zarelli v. Barnum, supra; Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13, 273 A.2d 714 (1970); Jacobs v. Goodspeed, 180 Conn. 415, 429 A.2d 915 (1980); Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 807, 614 A.2d 414 (1992); Gosselin v. Perry, 166 Conn. 152, 168, 348 A.2d 623 (1974); Barbieri v. Taylor, 37 Conn.Sup. 1, 2, 426 A.2d 314 (1980). Accordingly, a court should move cautiously in deciding to set aside a jury's verdict. "However, it is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that it does manifest injustice, and is . . . against the evidence . . ." State v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 704, 139 A.91 (1927); Labbe v. Hartford Pension Commission, 239 Conn. 168, 192, 682 A.2d 490 (1996). A verdict that is inconsistent or ambiguous should be set aside. Ginsberg v. Fusaro, 225 Conn. 420, 425-26, 623 A.2d 1014 (1993).
A verdict can be set aside "only if . . . the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached their conclusion . . ." Fleming v. Garnett, 231 Conn. 77, 83, 646 A.2d 1308 (1994); Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn.App. 712, 725, 682 A.2d 1026 (1996). "Any motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be granted except on substantial grounds." Burr v. Lichtenheim, 190 Conn. 351, 355, 460 A.2d 1290 (1983). The basic question for the court is whether upon all the evidence an injustice has been done. Id.
In this case, the plaintiff argues that because her expert witness established standard of care, breach, injury and causation, the jury should have found in her favor. She argues that the verdict in the defendants' favor is against the evidence presented and contrary to the law and that no reasonable jury could have found against her.
Two important issues must be noted. First, the plaintiff's expert was not the only witness who testified at trial. The plaintiff testified as to her conversations with the defendant Ramsey and the actions she took based upon those conversations. Dr. Ramsey testified about his conversations with the plaintiff and his actions. He and his expert witnesses testified as to the standard of care and whether there was a breach. Second, and most importantly, the issue of credibility — who to believe — was within the province of the jury. This is a well established principle of law. "[I]t is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all or none of a witness' testimony . . . Thus, if the court's dispositive finding here was not clearly erroneous, then the judgment must be affirmed." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Levy, Miller, Maretz, LLC v. Vuoso, 70 Conn.App. 124, 130-31 (2002).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, it is clear that the jury's verdict was based upon the law and the evidence presented. The court finds that the verdict in this case is not against the evidence nor is it contrary to law. The motion to set aside the verdict is denied.