Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, which owned facilities used for earth materials excavation and processing, submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection five individual applications for water diversion permits. The Department requested additional information for all five of Plaintiff’s applications. Plaintiff did not fully comply with the Department’s request. Instead of submitting the requested information, Plaintiff filed a petition for a declaratory ruling to address the scope of the Department’s authority to request information for Plaintiff’s water diversion permit applications. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection deemed all of the Department’s actions authorized under the Connecticut Water Diversion Policy Act (Act). The trial court endorsed in all material respects the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Act does not authorize the Department’s attempts to regulate Plaintiff’s excavation activities; (2) the Act does not authorize the Department to request a wetlands mitigation plan for the alteration of wetlands that had been authorized by prior municipal wetlands permit; and (3) the Department may not delay processing Plaintiff’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application due to a pending water diversion permit application. View "Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Comm’r of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe approved the application of Handsome, Inc. for a special exception permit to construct an industrial building in the Town, subject to thirty-six conditions. After the permit’s expiration date passed, the Commission denied Handsome’s application for a permit extension. The trial court concluded that the Commission must approve the application for a permit extension. The Commission ultimately granted Handsome’s application to extend the permit, subject to five other “requirements” and several “clarifications” relating to the original permit approval. Handsome and its principal officers appealed, challenging the imposition of conditions they alleged had not been part of the original permit. The trial court directed the Commission to approve the special exception permit conditioned only upon the conditions as recited by the Commission in its original decision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court, holding that Plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the Commission’s decision and therefore did not have standing to bring the appeal. View "Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Town of Groton, filed a tax appeal contesting the validity of a sales and use tax assessment issued by Defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services, in the amount of $240,653. The trial court dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court improperly concluded that the fees collected for refuse removal services provided to industrial, commercial, or income producing real properties were subject to the sales tax. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly determined that consideration existed to support Defendant’s assessment of Plaintiff for sales tax in connection with its revenue neutral program for the collection of refuse generated by commercial, industrial, or income producing real properties. View "Groton v. Comm’r of Revenue Servs." on Justia Law

At the time that Claimant suffered a compensable work-related injury to his left knee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group (Liberty Mutual) was the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for Claimant’s employer (Employer). Claimant subsequently suffered a compensable work-related injury to his right knee. At the time, Chubb & Son (Chubb) was the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for Employer. Claimant was scheduled to have bilateral knee replacement surgery, but the two insurance carriers disagreed about who would pay for Claimant’s temporary total disability benefits. After a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner required Liberty Mutual to reimburse Chubb for one half of Claimant’s temporary total disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Review Board and the Appellate Court affirmed. Liberty Mutual appealed, claiming that the Commissioner lacked the statutory authority to order the reimbursement to Chubb. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the unique factual circumstances of this case, the Commissioner had the authority to order the reimbursement pursuant to the relapse statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-307b. View "Gill v. Brescome Barton, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff submitted an application to the Department of Transportation (Department) for authority to operate two motor vehicles in a new intrastate livery service. The Department denied Plaintiff’s application, finding that Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proving the statutory requirement that his livery service would improve present or future “public convenience and necessity.” The trial court affirmed the Department’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s appeal from the Department’s denial of his permit application, holding that the Department improperly interpreted the “public convenience and necessity” provision of Conn. Gen. Stat. 13b-103(a). Remanded for a new hearing. View "Martorelli v. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a neglect petition seeking an order of temporary custody of Cassandra C., a minor, after medical providers reported that Cassandra and her mother were refusing to obtain appropriate medical treatment for Cassandra, who had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The trial court granted the order and placed Cassandra in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families, directing Respondents to cooperate with Cassandra’s medical care providers. Thereafter, Cassandra started chemotherapy but ran away before the treatment could be completed. The Commissioner moved to reopen the evidence to consider evidence regarding whether Cassandra was competent to make life-death decisions regarding her medical care. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered that Cassandra remain in the custody of the Department and authorized the Department to make all medical decisions for her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge’s finding that Cassandra was not competent to make her own medical decisions at the time of the underlying events was not clearly erroneous; (2) this was not a proper case in which to decide whether to adopt the mature minor doctrine, which allows a sufficiently mature minor to refuse medical treatment; and (3) Respondents’ constitutional rights were not violated. View "In re Cassandra C." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were employees of Employers when they each suffered compensable injuries. Plaintiffs were treated at two different hospitals. In each case, the hospital submitted a bill for its services to Employer. Employer paid each hospital in accordance with the cost assessment of a third-party bill reviewer, which in each case was significantly less than what had been billed by the hospital. The hospitals subsequently sought to have the workers’ compensation commissioner determine Employer’s liability for the hospital costs. At issue was whether Employer’s liability for the hospital services should be assessed on the basis of the commissioner’s determination of what it “actually cost” the hospitals to render the services, as provided under Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-294d(d), or on the basis of the hospitals’ published rates that they are required to charge “any payer” under Conn. Gen. Stat. 19a-646. The commissioner concluded that the two cases were controlled by Burge v. Stonington, in which the Supreme Court concluded that the “actually costs” language in the predecessor to section 31-294d(d) had been repealed or preempted in 1973 when the legislature first regulated hospital rates. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the public health scheme governing hospital rates for payers generally controlled the cases here. View "Caraballo v. Elec. Boat Corp." on Justia Law

The named plaintiff in this putative class action and her daughter (together, Plaintiffs) were injured in motor vehicle accidents. Defendant, which administered the Medicaid program for the state and was the designated assignee of the Department of Social Services under Conn. Gen. Stat. 17b-265, paid for the medical care that Plaintiffs received as a result of their injuries. After Plaintiffs brought civil actions against the tortfeasors, Defendant, acting through its agent, sought to recover from Plaintiffs the amounts they recovered from the tortfeasors as reimbursement for the payments made by Defendant for Plaintiffs’ medical care. Plaintiffs brought this action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that section 17b-265 did not authorize Defendant to seek reimbursement from them but required Defendant to seek recovery directly from the liable third parties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court did not err in concluding that section 17b-265 permitted Defendant to seek reimbursement from Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons for amounts that they recover from liable third parities for medical costs. View "Rathbun v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who worked for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for thirty-two years, was diagnosed with diabetes in 1987 and with diabetic neuropathy in 1998. The diabetic neuropathy caused impairment to his arms and hands. In 2003, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his upper arms and hands in a work-related accident. After Plaintiff retired in 2008 he filed a claim for benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner apportioned the payment so that Defendants, UPS and its insurer, paid only for the proportion of disability attributed to Plaintiff’s occupational injuries rather than pay the entirety of Plaintiff’s permanent partial disability to his upper extremities and hands. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a disability arising from a progressive nonoccupational condition - such as Plaintiff’s diabetes and diabetic neuropathy - that manifests prior to an occupational injury and that further disables the same body part is a compensable preexisting injury rather than a noncompensable concurrently developing disease under the apportionment rule established in Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. View "Sullins v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, insurance producers who conduct business within the state and licensees of the Department of Insurance (department), filed a declaratory judgment action against the Commissioner of Insurance seeking declaratory rulings with respect to the legality of their conduct in the sale of life insurance policies. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding (1) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing this declaratory judgment action pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-175; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish their standing to bring this declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court improperly determined that Plaintiffs were not aggrieved parties with standing to bring this declaratory judgment action; and (2) the trial court improperly dismissed this declaratory judgment action on the ground that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. View "Fin. Consulting, LLC v. Comm’r of Ins." on Justia Law