Burdick v. U.S. Finishing Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1941 |
| Citation | 22 A.2d 629,128 Conn. 284 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BURDICK v. UNITED STATES FINISHING CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Edward J. Quinlan, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Horace D. Burdick, claimant, opposed by the United States Finishing Company and others, wherein the commissioner made an award in favor of defendants, and wherein plaintiff made a motion to correct the finding and, on its denial, appealed to the superior court. From a judgment directing that the case be returned to the compensation commissioner to hear further evidence, correct the finding, and enter an award upon the finding as corrected, defendants appeal, and plaintiff moves to erase the appeal.
Motion granted.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
G. Randolph Erskine, of Wallingford, for plaintiff.
Edward S. Pomcranz, of Hartford, for defendants.
In this workmen's compensation case the commissioner made an award in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff made a motion to correct the finding and, it being denied, appealed to the Superior Court. The court, in its memorandum of decision, directed that the case be returned to the commissioner to correct the finding so that it would state facts instead of the contentions of the parties, to hear further evidence as to the cause of the pneumonia which incapacitated the plaintiff and further to correct the finding so that it would reveal whether that incapacity was due to a localized injury contemporaneously caused by the conditions of his employment or to a mere weakened resistance to disease, with an award to be entered upon the finding as corrected. A judgment was entered in accordance with the memorandum of decision. The defendants filed an appeal to this court from the decision of the lower court and the plaintiff has moved to erase it upon the ground that the judgment was not a final one from which an appeal would lie.
The defendants rely on Santos v. Publix Theatres Corporation, 108 Conn. 159, 142 A. 745. In that case, as appears on page 160 of 108 Conn, on page 745 of 142 A., the trial court had rendered judgment remanding the case to the commissioner for an award to the plaintiffs in accordance with the finding as corrected by it. On the return of the case to the commissioner, the defendants filed a motion that the award be opened and they be allowed to produce additional evidence. The commissioner denied the motion and made an award to the plaintiff in accordance with the finding as corrected by the Superior Court. The defendants then filed an appeal to the Superior Court from this award and the appeal was erased from the docket. We held that the erasure of the appeal was correct because the award as made was strictly in compliance with the direction of the Superior Court, the commissioner could enter no other award and the rights of the parties had been concluded by the first judgment of the Superior Court. A judgment remanding a case to the commissioner with directions to make a certain award fixes the rights of the parties, and is a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken. In the course of the opinion it is said (108 Conn, at page 161, 142 A. at page 746) that an examination of the compensation cases discloses the unquestioned practice that a judgment of the Superior Court "either dismissing the appeal and affirming the commissioner's award, or sustaining the appeal and remanding the cause to the commissioner for an award or other further proceedings in accordance with directions" is a judgment from which an appeal to this court may be taken. The "further proceedings in accordance with directions" referred to were not intended to include an appeal from a judgment remanding the case to the commissioner to correct his finding or the like and make a new award. A considerable number of cases are cited to support the statement in the opinion, but none of them involve such a situation. In Gonirenki v. American Steel & Wire Co., 106 Conn. 1, 137 A. 26, the commissioner denied a motion to open and modify an award made in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. The plaintiff pleaded in abatement to the appeal; the defendant filed a demurrer to the plea, which was sustained; and the plaintiff also filed a motion to erase, which was denied. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v. Department of Public Utility Control
...action. Schieffelin & Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, supra, 202 Conn. at 410, 521 A.2d 566; Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941). These cases stand for the proposition that there is no final judgment if the administrative record is incomple......
-
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, s. 15013
...resolution of all the issues between the parties.... Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." Schieffelin & Co. v. De......
-
Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
...See General Statutes [Rev. to 1987] § 4-183 (e). Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co. , 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." (Internal quotation marks ......
-
Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health
...the parties. See General Statutes § 4-183 (e). Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." Schieffelin & Co. v. Dept. of......