Burnham v. Karl and Gelb, P.C.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1998
• Citation: 723 A.2d 320,247 Conn. 944
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Carole BURNHAM v. KARL AND GELB, P.C., et al.

Page 320

723 A.2d 320

247 Conn. 944

Carole BURNHAM v. KARL AND GELB, P.C., et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided Dec. 7, 1998.

James S. Brewer, West Hartford, in support of the petition.

Nathan A. Schatz, West Hartford, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 50 Conn.App. 385, 717 A.2d 811 (1998), is granted, limited to the following issues.

"1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff's attempted use of violations of the federal Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to support a claim for wrongful termination failed as a matter of law because the existence of a statutory remedy under that law precluded the plaintiff's claim of wrongful discharge based on a violation of public policy?

"2. Whether the Appellate Court erred in concluding that an administrative remedy exited under OSHA?

"3. Whether the Appellate Court erred in concluding that no material fact in dispute existed as to whether the plaintiff exhausted her supposed administrative remedy with OSHA?

"4. Whether the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action for wrongful discharge against her employer for refusing to work under conditions that pose a substantial risk of death, disease or physical harm and that are not contemplated within the scope of the employee's duties?"

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16050.

BORDEN, KATZ and PALMER, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.