Rybinski v. STATE EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT COMMISSION

• Decision Date: 13 September 1977
• Citation: 878 A.2d 547,173 Conn. 462
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MARY RYBINSKI v. STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT COMMISSION

173 Conn. 462

878 A.2d 547

MARY RYBINSKI v. STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT COMMISSION

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 6, 1977.

Decision released September 13, 1977.

HOUSE, C. J., LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JS.

Edward T. Lynch, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).

Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Carl R. Ajello, attorney general, and Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

SPEZIALE, J.

The defendant state employees' retirement commission denied the plaintiff her request to change retirement plans, and she sought judicial review of this decision through the appeal provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (chapter 54 of the General Statutes, hereinafter referred to as the UAPA). The commission filed a plea in abatement claiming that the plaintiff was not entitled to judicial review pursuant to the UAPA and that the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff has appealed from the court's judgment sustaining the plea in abatement and dismissing the action.

"A plea in abatement is the proper pleading when `the ground of abatement is want of jurisdiction and [the] facts ... relied upon ... do not appear in the record.' Practice Book § 93." Kohn Display & Woodworking Co. v. Paragon Paint & Varnish Corporation, 166 Conn. 446, 448, 352 A.2d 301; East Side Civic Assn. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 558, 560 n.1, 290 A.2d 348. Ordinarily, a finding is necessary to test the conclusions of the trial court reached on a plea in abatement. See Leonard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 646, 648, 201 A.2d 466. These conclusions must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case. New Haven v. United Illuminating Co., 168 Conn. 478, 483, 362 A.2d 785; Lonergan v. Connecticut Food Store, Inc., 168 Conn. 122, 124, 357 A.2d 910; Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 79, 239 A.2d 500. The court found¹ that the plaintiff, Mary Rybinski, was an employee of the state of Connecticut and that the defendant commission was a state agency. The court further found that the commission denied the plaintiff's request to change retirement plans; that this decision was made as a matter of routine business at a regular commission meeting solely upon written correspondence between the parties; and that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appeared before the commission. The court concluded that the proceeding at which the commission denied the plaintiff's request was not a hearing; that because a hearing was neither required by statute nor in fact held, the proceeding did not involve a contested case within the meaning of the UAPA; that the UAPA did not authorize an appeal; and that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court further determined that the "plaintiff had made no additional claims of law." On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the UAPA did entitle her to judicial review of this matter and that the commission denied her procedural due process by reaching its decision without first having given her a full hearing.

I

The sole issue for our consideration is whether the plaintiff had access to the court through the appeal provisions of the UAPA entitling a party to judicial review of an agency's decision, because the plaintiff's claims relating to an alleged violation of her right to procedural due process are not properly before us. The record reveals that the plaintiff alleged that her appeal from the commission's decision to the Court of Common Pleas was "pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, [General Statutes] Sections 4-166 through 4-188, inclusive." The defendant commission filed a plea in abatement alleging, inter alia, that the UAPA was inapplicable and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The court sustained the plea. The only facts found by the court relate to the plea in abatement. They indicate only that the commission's decision concerned its denial of a requested change in retirement plans. The finding neither considers the merits of the request nor does it reveal the substance of what was requested. There are no facts for this court to consider for purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was unconstitutionally deprived of any vested property interest. This court cannot resort to matters extraneous to the formal record, to facts which have not been found and which are not admitted in the pleadings, or to documents or exhibits which are not part of the record. See Gould v. Gould, 164 Conn. 387, 389, 321 A.2d 443; American Can Co. v. Orange Pulp Co., 149 Conn. 417, 418, 180 A.2d 628. The court's conclusions pertain only to the issue of the UAPA's applicability to the matter in question. According to the record properly before us, only this issue was presented and considered at the proceeding below. Practice Book § 614 specifically requires that the draft finding of the appealing party contain "the claims of law made in the trial court with the rulings of the court thereon...." The plaintiff's draft finding contains no indication of any lower court rulings or its failure to rule on any constitutional claims presented for its consideration. Moreover, the plaintiff has not assigned as error the failure of the court to rule on any claim of law made by her below, and there is, therefore, no assignment of error relating to any specific ruling by the court on a constitutional question. The court expressly found that no additional claims of law (other than the claims that the UAPA entitled the plaintiff to judicial review) had been made, and the plaintiff has not attacked this on appeal. The facts found by the lower court furnish the basis for determining the appeal. Allison v. E. Paul Kovacs Co., 153 Conn. 519, 520, 218 A.2d 379; Automobile Ins. Co. v. Conlon, 153 Conn. 415, 421, 216 A.2d 828. "As we have repeatedly stated, this court will not consider claimed errors on the part of the trial court unless there has been a compliance with the provisions of § 652 of the Practice Book, that is, `unless they are specifically assigned and unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at the trial and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant's claim, or that it arose subsequent to the trial.' See State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576, and cases cited." State v. Uriano, 165 Conn. 104, 106, 328 A.2d 679. It is this court's well-established general rule that "[o]nly in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court." State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69, 327 A.2d 576. In the present case the record does not indicate that the lower court had an opportunity to consider the due process claims. See, e.g., Taylor v. Robinson, 171 Conn. 691, 372 A.2d 102 (although the constitutional claims were not reviewed on appeal because presented in too abstract a form). Nor is the record one where the facts found by the lower court completely reveal the essence of the plaintiff's claims before the commission, the commission's actions, and the reasons for the commission's decision. See, e.g., Shea v. State Employees' Retirement Commission, 170 Conn. 610, 368 A.2d 159. There is nothing to bring the present case within the exceptional circumstances noted in State v. Evans, supra.²

II

We turn now to the real issue of this appeal, which is whether the UAPA entitled the plaintiff to judicial review of the commission's decision in this case. The UAPA "applies to all agencies and agency proceedings not expressly exempted." General Statutes § 4-185. The right to judicial review of an administrative decision through an appeal under the UAPA is governed by § 4-183 (a), which provides in pertinent part: "A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter...." (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff claims that the proceeding in which the commission denied her request to change retirement plans was a contested case to which the judicial review provisions of the UAPA applied. In determining the merits of this claim, we must consider (1) whether the state employees' retirement commission is a nonexempt "agency"; and (2), if so, whether the proceedings in question involved a "contested case." See Taylor v. Robinson, 171 Conn. 691, 695, 372A.2d 102. An "agency" is defined for purposes of the UAPA as "each state board, commission, department or officer ... authorized by law to make regulations or to determine contested cases." § 4-166 (1). Although the plaintiff states in her brief that "the defendant would have the court believe that the [commission] is not a state `agency' within the definition of the [UAPA]," this assertion is not accurate. On the contrary, the commission admitted in its pleadings, and the court found, that the commission is a state agency. We agree. "The legislature has delegated to the defendant commission the broad and general power to administer the state retirement system." Tremblay v. Connecticut State Employees' Retirement Commission, 170 Conn. 410, 413, 365 A.2d 1125. The commission approves or disapproves applications for retirement benefits, and approval of an application for benefits is "an administrative act conferring a property right on the [applicant]." Shea v. State Employees' Retirement Commission, 170 Conn. 610, 614, 368 A.2d 159. The legislature has further provided that the commission "shall act as agent for the state in all matters relating to the social security agreement. The retirement commission may make regulations as to maintaining membership under social security."...