Flamenco v. Independent Refuse Service, Inc.
130 Conn. App. 280
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Flamenco sustained a December 17, 2007 injury and sought workers' compensation against Independent Refuse Service, Inc.
- Informal hearing was set for September 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; Flamenco's counsel arrived at 9:55 a.m.; no evidentiary hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before sanction.
- The commissioner imposed a $100 sanction under §§ 31-288 and 31-300 for late appearance allegedly causing undue delay.
- Flamenco appealed the sanction to the workers' compensation review board, which dismissed the petition for review for lack of a record.
- Flamenco challenged the board’s dismissal as improper and appealed to the Appellate Court, arguing due process/fundamental fairness concerns.
- This court reversed, holding the board should have considered the record and vacated the sanction, remanding to vacate the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanction violated fundamental fairness due to lack of hearing | Flamenco asserts due process rights were violated | Independent Refuse contends proper notice and sanctions procedure were followed | Yes; sanction violated fundamental fairness due to no hearing on the record |
| Whether there was a necessary finding that tardiness was unreasonable and without good cause | tardiness was not shown to be unreasonable or without good cause | commissioner implicitly found tardiness unreasonable | No such finding supported by record; absence invalidates sanction |
| Whether the board properly dismissed the appeal for lack of a record | record existed and the board should review the appeal | board correctly dismissed due to no record | Board erred; record existed for appellate review |
| Whether § 31-288(b)(2) sanctions require a hearing and notice as a due process matter | sanctionable conduct requires a proper hearing and notice | statutory sanction authority permitted after notice and opportunity | Sanction imposed without proper process violated due process/fundamental fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. Sheraton-Hartford Hotel, 62 Conn.App. 733 (2001) (administrative due process requires notice and right to be heard)
- CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375 (1996) (proper hearing required before sanctions; fair notice and opportunity to be heard)
- State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147 (1999) (due process considerations in disciplinary matters)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Botwick, 226 Conn. 299 (1993) (attorney entitled to notice and fair hearing before discipline)
- In the Matter of Presnick, 19 Conn.App. 340 (1989) (due process must be afforded before court may sanction attorney)
- Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 (1987) (administrative due process requires notice and right to present evidence)
- Williams v. State, 124 Conn. App. 759 (2010) (appellate review bound by commissioner’s factual findings if supported by record)