Whenever in a civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death, whether in tort or in contract, in which it is alleged that such injury or death resulted from the negligence of a health care provider, the jury renders a verdict specifying noneconomic damages, as defined in section 52-572h, in an amount exceeding one million dollars, the court shall review the evidence presented to the jury to determine if the amount of noneconomic damages specified in the verdict is excessive as a matter of law in that it so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption. If the court so concludes, it shall order a remittitur and, upon failure of the party so ordered to remit the amount ordered by the court, it shall set aside the verdict and order a new trial. For the purposes of this section, “health care provider” means a provider, as defined in subsection (b) of section 20-7b, or an institution, as defined in section 19a-490.
(P.A. 05-275, S. 10.)
History: P.A. 05-275 effective July 13, 2005.
If the legislature, presumably aware of the Connecticut Supreme Court's remittitur jurisprudence, had wanted to ensure that remittitur decisions made pursuant to this section would be reviewed de novo, it could have expressly so required. 331 C. 777.