The Connecticut Appellate Court recently upheld a jury's decision in a wrongful death case involving the Connecticut Institute for the Blind, Inc. (C Co.), which was found liable for the death of Scott Case. The court's ruling, delivered on September 15, 2026, highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in preserving claims for appeal.
The case arose when Kathleen Case, the administrator of her son Scott's estate, sued C Co. for negligence. Scott Case had lived at a facility operated by C Co., where he required the use of a BiPAP machine to manage his sleep apnea. Tragically, Scott was found unresponsive in his bed, leading to his death on May 23, 2016. The jury awarded Case $10 million in damages, which included $4 million in noneconomic damages and $6 million in punitive damages.
The court's ruling is significant as it emphasizes the procedural requirements that must be met for a defendant to successfully appeal a jury's verdict. C Co. argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages were improperly allowed. However, the court found that C Co. had failed to preserve these claims for appellate review.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Kathleen Case and the Connecticut Institute for the Blind, Inc. Kathleen Case is the administrator of her son Scott Case's estate, who died while residing at a facility operated by C Co. The dispute centers around allegations of negligence and recklessness on the part of C Co. regarding Scott's care.
Scott Case had lived at the C Co. facility from September 2015 until his death in May 2016. He required the use of a BiPAP machine to assist with his breathing during sleep. The plaintiff alleged that C Co. failed to ensure that the BiPAP machine was functioning properly and that staff did not follow the facility's guidelines for monitoring Scott's condition throughout the night. As a result, Scott was found unresponsive, leading to the wrongful death lawsuit.
The case was brought to trial in the Superior Court, where a jury found in favor of the plaintiff. C Co. subsequently appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court had made errors regarding the evidence and the handling of the plaintiff's claims.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Appellate Court, led by Chief Judge Cradle and Justices Elgo and Wilson, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court ruled that C Co. had not properly preserved its claims for appellate review, particularly regarding the alleged insufficiency of evidence.
The court stated, "This court declined to review C Co.’s claims of evidentiary insufficiency because it failed to properly preserve those claims for appellate review."
Furthermore, the court noted that C Co. did not file a motion to set aside the verdict within the required timeframe, which is necessary for raising such claims on appeal. The court explained that the defendant's failure to follow proper procedures meant that the appellate court could not consider their arguments regarding the jury's verdict.
Impact
The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving wrongful death and negligence claims. It underscores the necessity for defendants to adhere to procedural rules when contesting jury verdicts. Failure to properly preserve claims can result in the loss of the right to appeal, as seen in this case.
This decision may also affect how similar cases are litigated in the future. Defendants must ensure that they follow all procedural requirements to maintain their right to challenge verdicts, particularly in complex cases involving allegations of negligence and recklessness.
What's Next
It is unclear if C Co. will seek further appeal to a higher court, such as the Connecticut Supreme Court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps in this case.