green
Positive treatment
9.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Staurovsky v. Milford Police Dept.
(2×)
See Ayna v. Graebel/CT Movers, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 65, 71 , 33 A.3d 832 (commissioner possesses sole discretion to determine credibility of witnesses), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 905 , 38 A.3d 1201 (2012); Mele v. Hartford, 118 Conn. App. 104, 107 , 983 A.2d 277 (2009) (commissioner is sole arbiter of weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses).
examined
Cited "see"
Worth v. Commissioner of Transportation
(4×)
See Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154 , 31 A.3d 804 (2011), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 905 , 38 A.3d 1201 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Esposito v. Stamford (Dissent)
(2×)
With respect to factual findings of permanency in particular, the commissioner ‘‘can under certain condi- tions find the injured worker is or is not at maximum medical improvement and that decision is a factual decision [that] rests solely with the [commissioner] as the arbitrator of fact.’’ (Emphasis added.) 3 A. Sevarino, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation After Reforms (7th Ed. 2017) § 6.02.6, p. 913; see, e.g., Ayna v. Graebel/ CT Movers, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 65 , 70–71, 33 A.3d 832 (reviewing ‘‘the commissioner’s decision that the plaintiff . . . had reached maximum medi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Esposito v. Stamford (Dissent)
(2×)
With respect to factual findings of permanency in particular, the commissioner ‘‘can under certain condi- tions find the injured worker is or is not at maximum medical improvement and that decision is a factual decision [that] rests solely with the [commissioner] as the arbitrator of fact.’’ (Emphasis added.) 3 A. Sevarino, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation After Reforms (7th Ed. 2017) § 6.02.6, p. 913; see, e.g., Ayna v. Graebel/ CT Movers, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 65 , 70–71, 33 A.3d 832 (reviewing ‘‘the commissioner’s decision that the plaintiff . . . had reached maximum medi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Santiago G.
(2×)
It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine, upon examination of all the evi- dence, whether the [movant] has established substan- tial grounds for a new [proceeding], and the judgment of the trial court will be set aside on appeal only if it reflects a clear abuse of discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grasso v. Grasso, 153 Conn. App. 252 , 265, 100 A.3d 996 (2014); see also Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154 , 160–61, 31 A.3d 804 (2011), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 905 , 38 A.3d 1201 (2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Amy RATHBUN et al.
v.
HEALTH NET OF the NORTHEAST, INC.
v.
HEALTH NET OF the NORTHEAST, INC.
Not in source.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 7, 2012.
Rogers.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
Eric P. Smith, in support of the petition.
Linda L. Morkan and Elizabeth S. Massey, Hartford, in opposition.
The plaintiffs' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 133 Conn.App. 202, 35 A.3d 320, is granted, limited to the following issue:
"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that General Statutes § 17b-265 permitted the defendant to bring an action against the plaintiffs to recover its collateral source payments?"
ROGERS, C.J., and EVELEIGH, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.