Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.4-13

The plaintiff claims that (he/she) suffered permanent injury as a result of the defendant’s

negligence. As previously charged, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was

the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.1 In evaluating whether the plaintiff’s injuries are

permanent, you may consider the plaintiff’s physical condition before the claimed

(malpractice/surgery/accident), the amount of time that has elapsed since the claimed negligence,

the nature of the plaintiff’s symptoms and the change to (his/her) condition after the

(surgery/malpractice/accident), the consistency of the plaintiff’s symptoms that you find (he/she)

has proven, and, conversely, any other potential causes of what (he/she) claims is a permanent

injury. You may, but are not required to, infer from this circumstantial evidence that the

plaintiff’s injuries are permanent, even though there (is/may be) no medical testimony expressly

related to permanency.

1 This charge does not address causation. The rule for causation and the need for expert

testimony is that “[w]hen the causation issue involved goes beyond the field of ordinary

knowledge and experience of judges and jurors, expert testimony is required.” (Footnote

omitted.) Green v. Ensign–Bickford Co., 25 Conn. App. 479, 488, cert. denied, 220 Conn. 919

(1991). “Expert testimony is not required, however, when the medical condition is obvious or

common in everyday life. . . . Similarly, expert opinion may not be necessary as to causation of

an injury or illness if the plaintiff’s evidence creates a probability so strong that a lay jury can

form a reasonable belief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hughes v. Lamay, 89 Conn. App.

378, 381, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 972 (2005). “[U]nless causation under the facts is a matter of

common knowledge, the plaintiff has the burden of introducing expert testimony to establish a

causal link between the compensable workplace injury and the subsequent injury.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Coughlin v. Stamford Fire Dept., 334 Conn. 857, 865-66 (2020).