You have reached the original website of the |
CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS |
THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.
The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.
Criscio v. State/Southern Conn. State Univ., 4271 CRB-3-00-7 (June 1, 2001).
Respondent filed a motion requesting that CRB reserve question as to whether Supreme Court should reconsider and reverse its holding in Cashman v. McTernan School, 130 Conn. 401 (1943). CRB denied motion on basis that Cashman has been law for some 6 decades, and appellate issue did not appear to present a “question which was not free from reasonable doubt,” one of the prongs of test for determining whether question may be reserved to Appellate Court. See also, Criscio, § 31-275(1)(D).
Zeoli v. Norwalk Hospital Association, 3974 CRB-7-99-2 (March 13, 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 257 Conn. 527 (2001).
CRB, following Kuban v. Bridgeport Hospital, 3926 CRB-4-98-11 (September 23, 1999), declined to reserve the question of the respondents’ constitutional objections to § 31-349c to the Appellate Court. The panel cited Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., 248 Conn. 793 (1999), for the proposition that framing these issues as a reserved question would only serve to limit the potential scope of further appellate review. Supreme Court did not discuss this issue in its opinion. See also, Zeoli, § 31-349.
Kuban v. Bridgeport Hospital, 3926 CRB-4-98-11 (September 23, 1999), appeal dismissed, A.C. 20100 (January 5, 2000).
CRB declined to reserve constitutional questions of respondents to Appellate Court, as they were not justiciable by the board to begin with. By reserving them, CRB would only limit the potential scope of further review (citing Barton v. Ducci, 248 Conn. 793 (1999)(Trier’s dismissal of § 31-349 transfer claim was underlain by medical panel’s decision under § 31-349c; ruling of said panel is not appealable to CRB.)) See also, Kuban, § 31-278, § 31-349.
Barton v. Ducci Electric, 3569 CRB-8-97-3 (March 26, 1998).
See, Barton, § 31-308(b). Subsequent decision at Barton, 4374 CRB-6-01-4 (March 25, 2002), § 31-308(b).
Dixon v. United Illuminating Co., 2026 CRB-3-94-4, 36 Conn. App. 150 (1994), order of transfer vacated and matter remanded, 232 Conn. 758 (1995).
CRB reserved matter for the opinion of the appellate court to determine whether the chairman properly denied claimant’s Motion for Hearing on Order of Transfer and Motion to Stay and whether the chairman’s authority for said denial was proper under § 31-280. Appellate Court determined this matter raised issues of first impression which are not, in fact, free from reasonable doubt and transferred matter to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court held the chairman’s transfer of this case from the fourth district to the third district was not a proper exercise of his administrative powers under § 31-280 and that the CRB lacks appellate jurisdiction over appeals concerning the chairman’s exercise of his administrative powers under § 31-280. See also, Dixon, § 31-280.
Kinney v. State, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 143, 786 CRD-3-88-11 (April 6, 1989).
Motion To Dismiss for late filed reasons of appeal denied until jurisdictional issues are resolved by Supreme Court in Reservation by CRD under § 31-324. See also, Kinney, § 31-275(9), § 31-301-2.
You have reached the original website of the |
CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS |