Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & MacHine Co.green2 sentences1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 | 3 | 3 |
Beers v. Hubbardgreen2 sentences1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 1984“The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 105 Conn. 415, 418 , 135 A. 437 (1926); or that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant, but an independent contractor; see Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & Machine Co., 103 Conn. 701, 704 , 131 A. 73 | 3 | 3 |
Draus v. International Silver Co.green2 sentences1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 1984“The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 105 Conn. 415, 418 , 135 A. 437 (1926); or that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant, but an independent contractor; see Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & Machine Co., 103 Conn. 701, 704 , 131 A. 73 | 3 | 3 |
Menzies v. Fishergreen2 sentences1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 1988In Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 411 A.2d 924 (1979), in pointing out that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) addressed an employer’s “threshold failure” to contest “liability,” we said: “The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer’s part to contest ‘liability’: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; see Menzies v. Fisher, [ 165 Conn. 338, 340 , 334 A.2d 452 (1973)]; that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by workmen’s compensation; see Draus v. International Silver Co., 10 | 2 | 2 |
Adzima v. UAC/Norden Divisiongreen2 sentences2019For example, in Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division , 177 Conn. 107 , 113, 411 A.2d 924 (1979), our Supreme Court recognized the difference between an employer contesting the extent of the employee's disability instead of its liability: The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer's part to contest liability: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment ... that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by [workers'] compensation ... or that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant, but an independent co 2019For example, in Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division , 177 Conn. 107 , 113, 411 A.2d 924 (1979), our Supreme Court recognized the difference between an employer contesting the extent of the employee's disability instead of its liability: The statute clearly speaks to a threshold failure on the employer's part to contest liability: to claim, for example, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment ... that the injury fell within an exception to the coverage provided by [workers'] compensation ... or that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant, but an independent co | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.
green
2 sentences2019See id., at 114 , 411 A.2d 924 (no question that [employee's] injury was a compensable injury within the terms of the [workers'] compensation statute, i.e., that he had a right to receive compensation; the only contest concerned the extent of his lower back disability)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. , supra, 145 Conn. App. at 271 -72 , 76 A.3d 657 ; see also Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division , supra, at 113-14, 411 A.2d 924 (conclusive presumption does not bar employer, who has accepted liability and paid benefits on claim, from contesting extent of di 2019See id., at 114 , 411 A.2d 924 (no question that [employee's] injury was a compensable injury within the terms of the [workers'] compensation statute, i.e., that he had a right to receive compensation; the only contest concerned the extent of his lower back disability)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. , supra, 145 Conn. App. at 271 -72 , 76 A.3d 657 ; see also Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division , supra, at 113-14, 411 A.2d 924 (conclusive presumption does not bar employer, who has accepted liability and paid benefits on claim, from contesting extent of di | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.