Conetta v. City of Stamford, 15807

• Decision Date: 11 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 15807,15807
• Citation: 246 Conn. 281,715 A.2d 756
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Michael CONETTA v. CITY OF STAMFORD et al.

Page 756

715 A.2d 756

246 Conn. 281

Michael CONETTA v. CITY OF STAMFORD et al.

No. 15807.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 24, 1998.

Decided Aug. 11, 1998.

Booth M. Kelly, Jr., New London, for appellant (named defendant).

Michael Osborne and Kara K. DeRosa, Certified Legal Interns, with whom were Carolyn W. Kaas and Deborah R. Witkin, Hamden, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before CALLAHAN, BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and McDONALD, JJ.

KATZ, Associate Justice.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, at this particular stage of the proceedings, we have jurisdiction to consider the defendant's appeal. We conclude that we do not. Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.

The record discloses the following undisputed facts. The plaintiff, Michael Conetta, became a police officer for the named defendant, the city of Stamford (defendant), ¹ on August 10, 1970. On July 7, 1985, the plaintiff failed to report to work due to a psychiatric episode, which he claimed arose out of and in the course of his employment. At the behest of the Stamford police department (department), the plaintiff met with and was thereafter treated by Rafique Tai, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from severe depression and manifesting major clinical features of agitated and delusional thoughts. When the plaintiff's condition improved, Tai recommended to the department that the plaintiff be allowed to resume his duties as a police officer, but be assigned to indoor or inactive duties, without a gun, under supervision. When the department could not find a position that could accommodate the plaintiff's disability, the defendant, on the basis of the decision of the police pension board (pension board), pursuant to § C7-20-1 of the charter of the city of Stamford (city charter), placed him on disability retirement.

Thereafter, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-308(a), ² the plaintiff applied for workers' compensation benefits. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's eligibility on the grounds that the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric condition was not work-related, and, even if work-related, it was nevertheless barred because the condition had manifested itself more than three years before the plaintiff had filed his claim for compensation. ³ The plaintiff argued in response that, on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, the defendant was estopped from denying that his illness was work-related because, by paying him a disability pension pursuant to the city charter, the pension board had necessarily determined that his illness had resulted from his employment.

The hearing, conducted over several days between March, 1990, and June, 1991, was presided over by Commissioner Michael Sherman. After Sherman recused himself, Commissioner Linda Blenner Johnson (commissioner), with the permission of both parties, reviewed the transcripts and evidence and issued a "Finding and Dismissal," denying the plaintiff's claim for compensation. Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-301, ⁴ the plaintiff filed a petition with the workers' compensation review board (review board), claiming that the commissioner's conclusion was legally inconsistent with the subordinate facts and that many of the purported factual findings simply recited the evidence or were mere narrations of the claims of the parties.

The review board agreed that the commissioner merely had recited the evidence and made few factual findings to support her conclusion. Furthermore, the review board noted that, although the record did not reflect that the city charter had been introduced into evidence or that the commissioner had taken administrative notice of it, the commissioner had included in her decision a photostatic copy of § C7-20-1 of the city charter. On the basis of its determination that the commissioner improperly had made a finding based on a document not in evidence, and on the basis of its determination that there was a paucity of factual findings to support the commissioner's dismissal, the review board remanded the matter to the commissioner for further proceedings. As part of the remand, the review board ordered the commissioner to articulate the legal bases of her decision, specifically, to indicate whether she had dismissed the claim because the plaintiff had failed to prove causation or because the claim was time barred by § 31-294c. See footnote 3 of this opinion; see also Conetta v. Stamford, 13 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 68, 69-70 (1994).

On November 13, 1995, concluding that the review board had precluded her from considering the city charter, the commissioner conducted a limited hearing, allowing only reargument, and on November 30, 1995, she again ruled against the plaintiff. As part of her decision, the commissioner made five findings of fact. She found that: (1) the plaintiff had been hired as a police officer by the defendant on August 1, 1970; (2) the plaintiff alleged that on July 7, 1985, he had experienced the first manifestations of depression arising out of the course of his employment; (3) the defendant contested the claim on the theories that the disorder was not work-related and that, even if work-related, it was time barred; (4) Tai treated the plaintiff for his psychiatric condition; and (5) Tai made certain statements in a September 29, 1986 letter, which the plaintiff had introduced into evidence. The commissioner then recited portions of the letter and concluded that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his burden of proof on the issue of causation. The commissioner made no determination on the issue of whether the claim was time barred. ⁵

The plaintiff moved to correct the commissioner's findings, primarily to include the opinion of a prior treating physician pertaining to the work-related nature of delusional thoughts and a psychiatric disorder that the plaintiff suffered in 1985, and to distinguish that illness from past bouts of both work and nonwork-related depression. The commissioner denied the motion to correct.

Thereafter, on appeal, the review board concluded that the commissioner had misunderstood the nature of its previous ruling. The commissioner "was not instructed to omit the city charter from evidence; rather, the panel was saying that that document would first need to be placed in evidence before any findings could flow from it. The [plaintiff] has contended throughout the proceedings that by paying him a disability pension, the [defendant] necessarily has to have acknowledged that his illness was work-related. By not considering the charter, the commissioner omitted the possibility that the [plaintiff] could persuade her that the [defendant] should be estopped from contesting the causal relationship of his depression. She did not make a finding on timely notice, of course; her 1995 decision was based solely on the [plaintiff's] failure to prove causation. The commissioner's mistaken belief that she was precluded from considering the charter (or any other new evidence) may thus have had a determinative effect on this decision."

The review board expressed concern that a third decision by the same commissioner would "appear to be a mere exercise in 'going through the motions' " and that the plaintiff would emerge from the proceedings feeling that he had not "had a meaningful day in court." The review board then concluded that due process required that the matter be reheard de novo by a different commissioner "in order to preserve the vital appearance of impartiality in workers' compensation proceedings." This appeal followed. ⁶

On appeal, the defendant claims that the review board: (1) improperly remanded the case because the commissioner had failed to adhere to the board's remand following her first decision; (2) improperly ordered a remand for a trial de novo before a commissioner other than the one who previously had presided over the case based on what the board concluded was an "appearance of partiality"; (3) improperly ordered the commissioner to admit into evidence the city charter when the record had been closed and no motion to admit additional evidence pursuant to § 31-301(b) had been filed; (4) applied an improper standard of review in deciding that the commissioner's conclusion had resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts; and (5) improperly reversed the decision of the commissioner because, even if the city charter should have been admitted into evidence, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the decision granting him a disability pension had a res judicata effect. Additionally, the parties have briefed the question of whether the appeal from the decision of the review board ordering that the case be remanded for a trial de novo before a different commissioner had been taken from a final judgment. In connection with this last issue, we note that the commissioner who presided over this case resigned her position as a workers' compensation commissioner while this appeal was pending. We conclude that this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

I

We begin with the jurisdictional question of whether this appeal is from a final judgment. "It is axiomatic that, except insofar as the constitution bestows upon this court jurisdiction to hear certain cases; see Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission, 222 Conn. 166, 610 A.2d 153 (1992); the subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and of this court is governed by statute. Grieco v. Zoning Commission, 226 Conn. 230, 231, 627 A.2d 432 (1993). It is equally axiomatic that, except insofar as the legislature has specifically provided for an interlocutory appeal or other form of interlocutory appellate review; see, e.g., General Statutes § 52-278l (prejudgment remedies); General Statutes § 54-63g (petition for review of bail); General Statutes § 51-164x (court closure orders); State v. Ayala, 222 Conn. 331, 340, 610 A.2d 1162 (1992); appellate jurisdiction is...