Santos v. Publix Theatre Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1928 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SANTOS v. PUBLIX THEATRE CORPORATION ET AL.[*] |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richards Booth Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1918 § § 5339-5414) by Josephine Santos against the Publix Theatre Corporation and others. Defendants appealed to the Superior Court from a finding and award of the Compensation Commissioner in plaintiff's favor. A demurrer to the reasons of appeal was sustained, and motion to erase the appeal from the docket granted, and a judgment was entered dismissing the appeal and affirming the award and defendants appeal. No error.
Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellants.
Samuel H. Platcow and Joseph I. Shrebnik, both of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HINMAN, BANKS, and YEOMANS, JJ.
On June 21, 1927, the compensation commissioner made a finding and award dismissing the plaintiff's claim for compensation. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, including in the appeal a motion to correct the finding, which the court (Wolfe, J.) granted in part, and rendered judgment remanding the case to the commissioner for an award to the plaintiff in accordance with the finding as corrected. No appeal to this court was taken from this judgment. Subsequently the defendants filed a motion requesting the commissioner to reopen and allow the defendants to produce additional evidence. The commissioner denied this motion, and, on January 9, 1928, made an award of compensation to the plaintiff in accordance with the finding as corrected by the superior court and the direction of that court. The defendants filed an appeal to the superior court from this award, which appeal was dismissed and erased from the docket on plaintiff's motion. From the judgment entered dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, the defendants now appeal. The question presented by this appeal stated simply, is whether an appeal may be taken from an award made by the compensation commissioner in compliance and accordance with the direction of a judgment of the superior court rendered on an appeal from the original award by the commissioner.
The reasons filed in the second attempted appeal from the commissioner contained no claim that the award as made by him did not comply, in all respects, with the direction of the judgment of the superior court on the first appeal. They questioned, instead, the action of the latter court in correcting the finding upon the evidence submitted to it, the conclusions reached from the subordinate facts stated in the finding as corrected, and the judgment remanding the case to the commissioner for an award in accordance therewith. No doings of the commissioner independently of or not in conformity with that judgment were complained of with the exception of the denial of defendants' motion to reopen, which motion was not based on any of the grounds specified in section 5355 of the General Statutes, and from the denial of which no appeal lies. Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 101 Conn. 356, 358, 125 A. 874. The appeal related to the correctness and validity of the action and judgment of the superior court on the first appeal, from which judgment, as above noted, no appeal to this court was taken.
If the trial court " finds harmful error either in a conclusion of law or of fact, or in the finding of a material fact or the refusal to find a material fact, it should, if the award may be changed or modified without requiring a further hearing, sustain the appeal to this extent, and direct the commissioner to make the award in accordance with its direction." Thompson v. Twiss, 90 Conn. 444, 446, 97 A. 328, 330 (L. R. A. 1916E, 506). The course so indicated was followed in the instant case. Under section 76, Rules of the Superior Court (Practice Book, p. 258), the decision of the superior court upon a motion to correct the finding, in an appeal from a finding and award of a compensation commissioner, is made reviewable by this court " in the manner similar motions in other cases are reviewable."
So far as a careful investigation of our compensation cases discloses, the recognized, unvarying, and hitherto unquestioned practice has been to treat the 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Department of Income Maintenance
...hearing because of illegal procedures in the prior administrative adjudication. We also cited Santos v. Publix Theatres Corporation, 108 Conn. 159, 161, 142 A. 745 (1928), which held that appeals could immediately be taken from trial court judgments concerning awards of compensation, whethe......
-
Barry v. Historic Dist. Com'n
...to the Superior Court on that very issue. See, e.g., Watson v. Howard, supra, 138 Conn. at 468, 86 A.2d 67; Santos v. Publix Theatres Corp., 108 Conn. 159, 161, 142 A. 745 (1928). A trial court may alternatively conclude that an administrative ruling is in some fashion incomplete and theref......
-
Lieberman v. State Bd. of Labor Relations, AFL-CIO
...not involving additional evidence." Matey v. Estate of Dember, 210 Conn. 626, 630, 556 A.2d 599 (1989); see Santos v. Publix Theatres Corporation, 108 Conn. 159, 142 A. 745 (1928). On the other hand, we have determined that appellate review of a judicial order of administrative remand is pr......
-
Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee
...the Superior Court on that very issue. See, e.g., Watson v. Howard, 138 Conn. 464, 468, 86 A.2d 67 (1952); Santos v. Publix Theatres Corporation, 108 Conn. 159, 161, 142 A. 745 (1928)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 258 Conn. 529, 5......