Pagan v. Carey Wiping Materials Corp.
144 Conn. App. 413
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Sonia Pagan suffered a compensable back injury on Feb. 22, 2010 and received benefits until Oct. 24, 2011.
- Defendant Carey Wiping Materials Corp. filed Form 36 seeking to discontinue benefits based on treating physician’s assessment of maximum medical improvement.
- An informal hearing was held Oct. 27, 2011 and the commissioner approved discontinuance retroactive to Oct. 24, 2011.
- On the same day, a preformal hearing was scheduled for Dec. 5, 2011, and the plaintiff sought to bypass it by appealing to the board.
- The board remanded to the commissioner for a formal evidentiary hearing; Pagan challenged §31-296 as violating due process, and the court upheld the statute as constitutionally sufficient.
- The court conducted a Mathews v. Eldridge analysis and held the pretermination procedures of §31-296 comply with due process, with post-termination remedies available for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §31-296 pretermination procedures satisfy due process. | Pagan argues pretermination hearing is required to protect her property interest. | Carey Wiping Materials contends §31-296 safeguards plus posttermination remedies meet due process. | Yes; §31-296 pretermination procedures satisfy due process. |
| Is the Mathews balancing test satisfied by the §31-296 framework? | Pagan asserts greater protection via evidentiary pretermination hearing is needed. | Carey Wiping Materials argues the framework sufficiently protects against erroneous deprivation. | Yes; Mathews balancing supports the procedures. |
| Do safeguards at informal hearing and posttermination remedies mitigate risk of erroneous termination? | Plaintiff alleges risk of error without an evidentiary pretermination hearing. | Employer evidence at informal hearing plus posttermination review reduces error risk. | Safeguards and remedies are adequate. |
| Is the government interest in speedy resolution outweighing need for pretermination evidentiary hearings? | Pretermination hearings are necessary to protect claimants’ interests. | Expedited disposition serves public policy of prompt compensation decisions and minimizes costs. | Public interests outweigh need for pretermination evidentiary hearing. |
| Does the claimant have cross-examination rights at pretermination? | Pagan seeks cross-examination in pretermination proceedings. | No explicit right; due process satisfied by informal hearing safeguards. | Court declines to grant cross-examination right in pretermination hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1976) (two-step Mathews balancing test for due process)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 1970) (pretermination welfare benefits require oral hearing)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (Supreme Court, 1982) (existent property interest in state adjudicatory procedures)
- Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 299 Conn. 346 (Conn. 2010) (Mathews framework applied to workers’ compensation context in Connecticut)
- Anguish v. TLM, Inc., No. 3437 CRB 7-96-9 (Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1998) (informal hearing and timing guidance for Form 36)