Grody v. Tulin, 170 Conn. 443, 365 A.2d 1076 (1976), was a wrongful death action, in which the plaintiff alleged a failure to diagnose a fatal spinal cancer. A directed verdict for the defendants was appropriate in that case because the expert witness testified that it was not reasonably probable that the plaintiff's life would have been prolonged if she had had the proper tests to diagnose the cancer earlier. Id., 450 & n.3. Without such testimony, the jury could not speculate as to whether an earlier diagnosis and treatment might have prolonged the decedent's life. Id., 450-51. To prevent a directed verdict, the plaintiff had to show more than that earlier treatment might have been beneficial. It is noteworthy that in Grody, the court allowed a plaintiff's expert to testify as to the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Id., 449-50.