Freese v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Gustav Cariglio
169 A.3d 237
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Freese and Cariglio filed Medicaid applications for their mothers; both mothers died before the agency issued final decisions denying benefits.
- Each child appealed the agency denials to the Superior Court under the administrative appeal statute, § 4-183(a), suing in their own names (not as estate fiduciaries).
- After appeals were filed, each plaintiff was appointed administratrix/co-executor of the decedent’s estate (appointments occurred before the trial court ruled on motions to dismiss).
- The Department of Social Services moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not aggrieved and had not sued as executors/administrators.
- The trial court dismissed both appeals and denied motions to substitute the newly appointed estate fiduciaries under the remedial substitution statute, § 52-109; plaintiffs appealed and the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UPM (agency regulations) conferred representative standing to appeal | Plaintiffs: UPM permits representatives to request fair hearings and thus authorizes them to appeal in representative capacities | DSS: Standing to appeal is statutory under §4-183; UPM cannot enlarge statutory standing requirements | Held: UPM cannot override §4-183; plaintiffs lacked aggrievement and thus standing to appeal in their personal capacities |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded aggrievement under §4-183(a) | Plaintiffs: alleged they were next friends/putative administrators and were aggrieved by denial of benefits | DSS: Plaintiffs alleged injury only to decedents, not a personal legal interest; lacked executor/administrator status at filing | Held: Plaintiffs failed to plead a specific personal and legal interest; no aggrievement; §52-599 survival statute limited to executors/administrators |
| Whether §52-109 substitution could cure the jurisdictional defect after plaintiffs became fiduciaries | Plaintiffs: substitution should relate back under §52-109 (and Kortner) to cure standing defect | DSS: Appeals were nullities or not "actions" salvageable by §52-109; substitution would prejudice DSS and lacks identity-of-interest | Held: Trial court erred in denying substitution as a matter of law; substitution may cure defects and administrative appeals are actions for §52-109 purposes, but remand required to determine whether the original misnaming was a "mistake" and whether substitution is necessary |
| Whether Kortner requires the decedent to have been alive when the action commenced for substitution to be allowed | Plaintiffs: Kortner supports substitution even if fiduciary appointed later | DSS: Kortner implies substitution only where decedent had a colorable claim while alive | Held: Kortner does not categorically bar substitution when decedent predeceased filing; Kortner emphasized that substitution cured defects where a colorable claim existed, but does not foreclose substitution here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516 (2014) (remedial statutes should be construed liberally in favor of their beneficiaries)
- Kortner v. Martise, 312 Conn. 1 (2014) (substitution of real party in interest may relate back to cure defects in standing)
- New England Rehabilitation Hosp. of Hartford, Inc. v. Comm’n on Hospitals & Health Care, 226 Conn. 105 (1993) (statutory creation of right to appeal; standing requires aggrievement)
- New England Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 247 Conn. 95 (1998) (aggrievement requires a specific personal and legal interest specially and injuriously affected)
- Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. P’ship v. Norwalk, 320 Conn. 535 (2016) (definition of "mistake" under §52-109 and substitution principles)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (2010) (defendant rarely prejudiced when substitution corrects identity of real party if claims were clear)
- Burton v. Browd, 258 Conn. 566 (2001) (right-of-survival statute §52-599 limited to executors or administrators)
- Cales v. Office of Victim Services, 319 Conn. 697 (2015) (appellate jurisdiction from administrative decisions exists only under statute)