Sastrom v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd.
Decision Date | 28 April 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 17909.,No. 17908.,17908.,17909. |
Citation | 291 Conn. 307,968 A.2d 396 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Roy SASTROM v. PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD. Guy Levine v. Psychiatric Security Review Board. |
Richard E. Condon, Jr., assistant public defender, for the appellant in each case (plaintiff in each case).
Patrick B. Kwanashie, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellee in each case (defendant in each case).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
In these certified appeals, we must determine whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide the appeals brought by the plaintiffs, Roy Sastrom and Guy Levine,1 from the declaratory rulings by the defendant, the psychiatric security review board (board), in which the board concluded that § 17a-581-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies2 is valid because it does not conflict with General Statutes § 17a-599.3 The Appellate Court concluded that the board's rulings are not among the final decisions that may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., and affirmed the judgments of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' administrative appeals. We reverse the judgments of the Appellate Court because we conclude that the Superior Court did have jurisdiction over the administrative appeals from the board's declaratory rulings as to the validity of § 17a-581-44 of the regulations. We further conclude, however, that judgments should be rendered in favor of the board on the merits of the plaintiffs' administrative appeals because § 17a-581-44 of the regulations does not conflict with § 17a-599.
The relevant facts and procedural histories are set forth in the decisions of the Appellate Court and are not in dispute. Sastrom, the plaintiff in the first case, was committed on July 11, 1994, "to the jurisdiction of the [board] for a period of time not to exceed forty years after he was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect of the charges of two counts of harassment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182b(a) four counts of threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62(a)(2), and two counts of attempt to commit larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-125a. [Sastrom] initially was confined at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting), a maximum security mental health facility, but subsequently was transferred to the less restrictive setting of the Dutcher Enhanced Security Service of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Dutcher). While at Dutcher, he was moved from South 2, the enhanced treatment unit, to North 3, a community transition unit.
" Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 100 Conn.App. 212, 214-16, 918 A.2d 902 (2007).
The plaintiff in the second case, Levine, was committed on March 6, 1992, "to the custody of the [board] for a period of time not to exceed 100 years after he was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect of two counts of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. [Levine] was confined at [Whiting]. . . .
Levine v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 100 Conn.App. 224, 225-26, 918 A.2d 900 (2007).
The board again concluded that (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 226, 918 A.2d 900.
The plaintiffs appealed from the board's declaratory rulings to the Superior Court.6 The board argued that there was no statutory right to appeal from its declaratory rulings, and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court agreed with the board and concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the decisions being appealed were not within the exclusive list of appealable orders set forth in General Statutes § 17a-597. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeals. Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, supra, 100 Conn.App. at 216, 918 A.2d 902; see also Levine v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, supra, 100 Conn.App. at 227, 918 A.2d 900.
The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's judgments of dismissal to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the UAPA does not permit "appeal[s] for every declaratory ruling, but only for those that meet the conditions of [General Statutes] § 4-183, as restricted by [General Statutes] §§ 4-186(f) and 17a-597." Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, supra, 100 Conn.App. at 223, 918 A.2d 902; see also Levine v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, supra, 100 Conn. App. at 227, 918 A.2d 900. We granted certification in each case to determine whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' appeals from the declaratory rulings issued by the board. Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 282 Conn. 920, 920-21, 925 A.2d 1101 (2007); see also Levine v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 282 Conn. 921, 925 A.2d 1101 (2007).7 We reverse the judgments of the Appellate Court.
Our resolution of the certified question is guided by our well settled standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ferguson Mechanical Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 282 Conn. 764, 770-71, 924 A.2d 846 (2007). This case raises two jurisdictional issues, which we address in turn.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fullerton v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 280 Conn. 745, 760, 911 A.2d 736 (2006).
In the cases before us, we must determine whether the UAPA authorizes the Superior Court to assume jurisdiction over appeals from the board's declaratory rulings as to the validity of § 17a-581-44 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding
...was without authority to determine that Connecticut recognizes an unretained expert privilege. See Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board , 291 Conn. 307, 315, 968 A.2d 396 (2009) ("[a] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction" [int......
-
State v. McCoy
...as to limit jurisdiction only to the extent expressly and explicitly stated by the legislature. See Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board , 291 Conn. 307, 324–25, 968 A.2d 396 (2009) (explaining that legislature knows how to expressly limit scope of jurisdiction and if no intent to l......
-
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich
...of the Supreme Court—was "excluded by deliberate choice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 291 Conn. 307, 319 n. 15, 968 A.2d 396 (2009). 6. See footnote 8 of the majority opinion; see also part II of Justice Katz' dissenting 7. Article third......
-
In Re Matthew F. *
...is a question of law, [and therefore] our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 291 Conn. 307, 314, 968 A.2d 396 (2009). Moreover, our analysis of the court's jurisdiction in the current case requires us to examine the scope an......