In Richmond v. Longo, 27 Conn. App. 30, 40, 604 A.2d 374, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 902, 606 A.2d 1328 (1992), the Court held that the court abused its discretion in limiting the scope of the defendant's cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert witness, stating that it should have permitted the defendant to voir dire the witness outside the presence of the jury and concluding that its "refusal to permit such cross- examination without having full knowledge of what such cross- examination might elicit was improper." The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial because: "When a party has not been permitted fair and full cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects of his examination in chief . . . the denial of this right is . . . prejudicial and requires reversal by this court." Id.