Kinney v. State
Decision Date | 04 March 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 18020.,18020. |
Citation | 941 A.2d 907,285 Conn. 700 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Joan A. KINNEY, Administratrix (Estate of Frank J. Kinney, Jr.) v. STATE of Connecticut. |
Roger J. Frechette, New Haven, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael R. Bullers, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McWEENY, Js.
The plaintiff, Joan A. Kinney, administratrix of the estate of her husband, the Honorable Frank J. Kinney, Jr. (decedent), a Superior Court judge, appeals1 from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the state of Connecticut, on her claim alleging negligence in connection with her decedent's death. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the special act under which the legislature had extended the time limitation under General Statutes § 4-1482 to bring her claim against the state; Special Acts 1994, No. 94-13, § 1 (S.A. 94-13);3 constitutes an unconstitutional exclusive public emolument or privilege because it does not serve a public purpose and therefore the court improperly determined that S.A. 94-13 could not be used to extend the time to bring her claim. We disagree with the plaintiff, and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
The record discloses the following undisputed facts and procedural history. On September 28, 1986, the decedent collapsed at home and died of an apparent heart attack. On December 16, 1986, the plaintiff initiated a workers' compensation claim, essentially asserting that the decedent's death was causally related to work induced stress. On July 30, 1987, during the course of the workers' compensation proceedings, but prior to the expiration of the time limitation under § 4-148(a) for filing a claim against the state with the claims commissioner, the assistant attorney general representing the state informed the plaintiff's counsel before the workers' compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner) that it was the state's position that judges are not "employees" and hence not entitled to workers' compensation benefits, and that the state would be filing an appropriate motion regarding this issue. Following the commissioner's conclusion that the decedent was an employee for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act; General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 31-275(5); and that his death arose out of and in the course of his employment, the commissioner awarded the plaintiff the maximum allowable spousal survivorship benefits under General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 31-306(b)(2). The state then appealed from that decision to the compensation review division (review division),4 challenging the validity of the commissioner's determination that the plaintiffs claim fell within the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Act. The state maintained that a state court judge is not an "employee" for purposes of workers' compensation, and does not have an employer-employee relationship with the state. Pursuant to the procedure authorized by General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 31-324, the review division sought guidance on these questions of law, and propounded the reservation that was the subject of this court's decision in Kinney v. State, 213 Conn. 54, 55, 566 A.2d 670 (1989), in which this court agreed with the state's position and concluded that judges are not "employees" within the workers' compensation scheme.
Over the next few years following this decision, the plaintiff pursued numerous legal avenues in an attempt to obtain additional benefits from the state. First, she returned to the review division, which ruled against her, and then she filed an appeal from that decision to the Appellate Court, which also ruled against her in an unpublished decision. The plaintiff then filed a petition for certification to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, both of which were unsuccessful. Kinney v. State, 215 Conn. 807, 576 A.2d 538, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 898, 111 S.Ct. 251, 112 L.Ed.2d 209 (1990). The plaintiff then initiated an action against the state in federal court, contending that the state's denial both impaired the decedent's employment contract with the state and violated her fifth and fourteenth amendment rights. The United States District Court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the decision. Kinney v. Connecticut Judicial Dept., 974 F.2d 313, 315 (2d Cir.1992). Finally, the plaintiff brought an identical action in Superior Court, which was dismissed. Kinney v. State, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV91395815, 1992 WL 394533 (December 22, 1992) (8 Conn. L. Rptr. 103). At no time during this period did the plaintiff file a claim with the claims commissioner seeking permission to file an action against the state.
On or about July 29, 1994, nearly eight years after the decedent's death, the plaintiff filed a claim with the claims commissioner seeking permission to sue the state for negligence. The claim alleged that the plaintiff had been authorized to file the otherwise untimely claim pursuant to S.A. 94-13, § 1, which had been approved by the legislature on June 7, 1994, and which provided: "(a) Notwithstanding the failure to file a proper notice of a claim against the state with the clerk of the office of the claims commissioner, as required by section 4-147 of the general statutes, within the time limitations specified by subsection (a) of section 4-148 of the general statutes, and notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of said section 4-148 barring the presentment of a claim once considered by the claims commissioner, by the general assembly or in a judicial proceeding, [the plaintiff] is authorized pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of said section 4-148 to present her claim against the state to the claims commissioner, provided she files a notice of such claim with the clerk of the office of the claims commissioner in accordance with said section 4-147 not later than October 1, 1994.
On December 6, 2000, after the parties filed briefs and a hearing was held, the claims commissioner rendered a decision on the merits denying the plaintiff permission to bring an action against the state. The legislature subsequently rejected the claims commissioner's recommendation and authorized the plaintiff to institute an action for damages against the state. See Substitute House Joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pereira v. State Bd. of Educ.
...bear the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Kinney v. State, 285 Conn. 700, 710, 941 A.2d 907 (2008) (''legislative enactments carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality, and . . . a party challenging the c......
-
Pereira v. State Bd. of Educ., No. 18833.
...bear the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Kinney v. State, 285 Conn. 700, 710, 941 A.2d 907 (2008) (“legislative enactments carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality, and ... a party challenging the cons......
-
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
...It should be done with great caution and only when the case for invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Kinney v. State, 285 Conn. 700, 710, 941 A.2d 907 (2008). That principle applies with even more force when the judicial act of invalidation constitutes the alteration of a fu......
-
Kinney v. Connecticut
...the Superior Court. On March 4, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. See Kinney v. State, 285 Conn. 700, 941 A.2d 907 (2008). The Connecticut Supreme Court found that S.A. 94-13 had conferred an exclusive public emolument on the Plaintiff, and thu......
-
Tort Developments in 2008
...there was a greater than 50 percent chance of avoiding the harm. Id. 157.Id. at 276, 281. 158.Id. at 282-84. 159.Id. at 285-287. 160. 285 Conn. 700, 708-12, 941 A.2d 907 (2008). The complaint alleged that the state had been negligent in assigning the plaintiff's decedent, a judge of the sup......