 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bailey v. Medical Examining Board for State Employee Disability Retirement2/25/2003
The plaintiff, Jane Bailey, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant medical examining board for state employee disability retirement (board) to dismiss her administrative appeal on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly dismissed her appeal on the ground that the board's denial of disability retirement benefits was not a final decision in a contested case within the meaning of the UAPA and (2) the board's denial of benefits was improper under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the board's decision constituted a "final decision" pursuant to the UAPA. Because the board's decision was not an agency determination in a contested case, the court properly dismissed the appeal on the ground of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff, a state employee with an extensive history of significant family related difficulties, was employed as a purchasing service officer at Capital Community Technical College. On April 29, 1991, the plaintiff departed from work and reported to an emergency room where she was diagnosed as having acute dysmenorrhea and acute hyperventilation. Specifically, it was determined that she had experienced a panic attack following a disagreement with her supervisor. See Bailey v. State, No. 3922 CRB-02-98-10 (November 30, 1999). The plaintiff did not return to work following that incident and subsequently was admitted to a hospital in May, 1991, for treatment of major depression with severe anxiety and borderline psychotic symptomatology. During the plaintiff's hospital admission, she also was diagnosed with glaucoma and a mixed type personality disorder with passiveaggressive and dependant features. It later would be determined that significant family stressors existed contemporaneous to the plaintiff's hospital admission.
Following the incident with her supervisor, the plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim. In 1994, the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) determined that the plaintiff had a compensable, psychotic, workplace related injury resulting from the stress that she had experienced in 1991.
In 1998, the plaintiff filed an application for service connected disability retirement benefits. On March 30, 2001, a hearing was held before a three member panel of physicians to determine the extent of the plaintiff's disability. On the basis of that hearing and a review of documentation admitted into evidence, the board determined that " t is clear from the extensive record of medical and psychiatric treatment that the applicant's mental illness impacted on her ability to function in the workplace and it continues to be disabling; however, the board is unable to conclude that her disability is due to her employment as a purchasing service officer. On the whole, the evidence does not support the conclusion of service connection, and the application is therefore denied."
On June 5, 2001, the plaintiff appealed to the court from the board's decision. In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court, finding that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist, granted the defendant's motion. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed her appeal on the ground that the boa
Page 1 2 3 4 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|