Opinion
UWYCV146024727S
11-07-2016
Richard Stanco v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co
Filed November 10, 2016
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS
Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge.
This underinsured motorist action was brought by writ of summons and complaint dated July 22, 2014, with a return date of August 19, 2014. On April 1, 2016, after two days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000. (#142.) The court accepted the verdict on the same date. Following a reduction of the verdict for collateral sources, the court entered judgment for the defendant on August 23, 2016 [62 Conn.L.Rptr. 884, ]. (#153.) Thereafter, the defendant filed a Bill of Costs on August 31, 2016 (#155) in which he sought, inter alia, an expert witness fee pursuant to General Statutes § 52-260(f) and a trial expense fee including the costs of recording, videotaping, transcribing and presenting at trial the deposition testimony of the expert pursuant to General Statutes § § 52-257(b)(5) & 52-257(b)(12). The plaintiff objected on September 6, 2016. (#156.) By order dated September 20, 2016, the clerk disallowed the expert witness fee and the trial expense fee pursuant to General Statute § 52-260(f).
General Statutes § 52-260(f) provides in relevant part: " When any practitioner of the healing arts . . . gives expert testimony in any action or proceeding, including by way of a deposition, the court shall determine a reasonable fee to be paid to such practitioner . . ."
The defendant filed the instant motion for review of taxation of costs on October 6, 2016 (#158) asking the court to determine reasonable expert witness and trial expense fees to be taxed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum regarding the defendant's bill of cost (#159) arguing that the defendant had not adduced evidence regarding the reasonableness of the expert's fee at trial. In support of his position, the plaintiff cited Boczer v. Sella, 113 Conn.App. 339, 344-45, 966 A.2d 326 (2009) ( Boczer I ). At oral argument before the court on November 7, 2016, the defendant argued the court has ample evidence to determine the reasonableness of the expert's fees, citing Holmes v. Hartford Hospital, 147 Conn.App. 713, 84 A.3d 885 (2014).
Boczer I was remanded to the trial court for further proceeding, after which another appeal was taken. Boczer v. Sella, 135 Conn.App. 360, 41 A.3d 1162 (2012) (Boczer II ).
The court finds Boczer I and Holmes consistent. In Holmes, the court pointed out that the trial court's award of expert fees was supported by evidence of the expert's " expertise . . . experience and the basis on which [they] computed [their] fee[s]." (Citation omitted) Holmes v. Hartford Hospital, 147 Conn.App. 713, 729, 84 A.3d 885 (2014). Here, although the court heard testimony from the expert about his expertise and experience, the court does not have sufficient information about how the expert calculated his fee. When asked at trial how his fee is determined, the expert replied that he didn't know because he had nothing to do with billing. Consequently, the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to challenge the calculation of the expert's fee.
The motion for review of taxation of costs is denied.