Hayes v. Decker (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** Hayes v. Decker--CONCURRENCE VERTEFEUILLE, J., concurring. I agree with and join part II of the majority opinion. With regard to part I, however, I agree with the result, but not with the analysis. In part I of its opinion, the majority concludes, first, that the manner in which the trial court applied State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998), to the testimony of the plaintiff s expert witness, Richard Friedlander, was improper. The majority thereafter concludes that Porter simply does not apply to Friedlander s testimony. In my view, the threshold inquiry in the present case is whether Porter applies. I think it is important to establish first, and unequivocally, that Porter does not apply to expert medical testimony like Friedlander s, which was based on generally accepted medical principles, and not on innovative scientific techniques. Friedlander s opinion was a logical deduction from two generally accepted medical premises. As such, his testimony was admissible without undergoing a Porter analysis or being subjected to a Porter hearing. Having concluded that Porter does not apply to Friedlander s testimony, I would find it unnecessary to review the manner in which the trial court applied Porter to that testimony. If I were to reach that issue, I would agree with the majority that a Porter analysis is directed to the methodology, techniques or premises underlying an expert s opinion, and not to the opinion itself. Accordingly, I concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
