Maldonado v. Flannery
Citations
- 343 Conn. 150
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, M and H, sought to recover damages for personal injuries they sustained when a vehicle driven by the defendant F and owned by the defendant T rear-ended the vehicle in which the plaintiffs were traveling. The defendants admitted that the accident resulted from F's negligence, and the trial was therefore limited to the issues of causation and damages. The plaintiffs introduced into evidence their medical records and bills, including reports by their chiropractor, P, in which P diagnosed M and H with, inter alia, various injuries to and conditions 343 Conn. 150 MAY, 2022 151 Maldonado v. Flannery associated with their necks and backs that, in his opinion, were perma- nent in nature and would require future treatment. After the accident, M was treated approximately sixty-two times over the course of two years and H was treated approximately forty-nine times over the course of eight months, primarily at P's practice, and they each received chiro- practic manipulation of the spine and neck, application of hot and cold packs, electrical stimulation, and, on one occasion, an epidural steroid injection. M received two magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) scans, H receive one MRI, and they both were referred for physical therapy. The defendants' expert, L, agreed that the plaintiffs sustained injuries to their necks and backs as a result of the accident and that a period of physical therapy and chiropractic treatment was reasonable and nec- essary, but he disagreed with P that the length of their treatment was reasonable and that future treatment was necessary. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them each economic damages but zero noneconomic damages for their pain and suffering. The verdict form indicated that the jury awarded the plaintiffs all of their respective claimed medical expenses for their hospital visits on the day of the accident, as well as their MRIs, X-rays, and physical therapy, but made slight reductions in the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[the law allows] a plaintiff [to] recover all of the dam- ages suffered as a result of a tortfeasor’s negligence’’ (emphasis omitted)
- ‘‘the right to a jury trial is enshrined in our constitution and counts among the most vital checks against governmental overreach’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-06· cited 6×
- Lynch v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-02-06· cited 5×
- State v. OutlawSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-06· cited 1×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-08· cited 1×
- Suprynowicz v. TohanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-01-14· cited 1×
- Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-01-30
Cites
40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-07-03· cited 437×
- Birgel v. HeintzSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-04-19· cited 129×
- Seals v. HickeySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-03-02· cited 114×
- Boggavarapu v. PonistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-05-20· cited 109×
- Childs v. BainerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-08-15· cited 106×
- Palomba v. GraySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-06-21· cited 98×
- Wichers v. HatchSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-02-15· cited 88×
- Manning v. MichaelSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-12-07· cited 73×
- Todd v. BerciniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1952-11-18· cited 66×
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-03· cited 61×
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-03-18· cited 61×
- George v. EricsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-24· cited 60×
- McKirdy v. CascioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1955-01-25· cited 52×
- Fazio v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-27· cited 49×
- Ginsberg v. FusaroSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-04-27· cited 44×
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Charter Appraisal Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-02-02· cited 35×
- Schroeder v. Triangulum AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-02-05· cited 31×
- Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-12-27· cited 25×
- Mark v. Congregation Mishkon TefilohSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 2000-02-15· cited 22×
- Howard v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-07-13· cited 21×
Other cases named Maldonado v. Flannery
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.