In Marchetti, for instance, in which we determined that the Appellate Court had applied an incorrect standard for determining such future medical expenses; see id. at 53–54, 688 A.2d 1325; we nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of the need for future medical treatment to satisfy the more stringent standard that should have been applied when the plaintiff introduced expert testimony from a physician that he would require future medical treatment, the cost of which could be estimated on the basis of his prior treatments.
" and (2) "Applying that standard, should the judgment of the Appellate Court upholding the jury verdict be affirmed?" Marchetti v. Ramirez, 237 Conn. 914, 675 A.2d 884
(1996). The relevant facts and testimony may be summarized briefly as follows.