Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-60 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 17-2a). Fair hearings by commissioner. Application

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An aggrieved person authorized by law to request a fair hearing on a decision of the Commissioner of Social Services or the conservator of any such person on his behalf may make application for such hearing in writing over his signature to the commissioner and shall state in such application in simple language the reasons why he claims to be aggrieved. Such application shall be mailed to the commissioner within sixty days after the rendition of such decision. The commissioner shall thereupon hold a fair hearing within thirty days from receipt thereof and shall, at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing, mail a notice, giving the time and place thereof, to such aggrieved person, or if the application concerns a denial of or failure to provide emergency housing, the commissioner shall hold a fair hearing within four business days from receipt thereof, and shall make all reasonable efforts to provide notice of the time and place of the fair hearing to such aggrieved person at least one business day prior to said hearing. A reasonable period of continuance may be granted for good cause. The aggrieved person shall appear personally at the hearing, unless his physical or mental condition precludes appearing in person, and may be represented by an attorney or other authorized representative. A stenographic or mechanical record shall be made of each hearing, but need not be transcribed except (1) in the event of an appeal from the decision of the hearing officer or (2) if a copy is requested by the aggrieved person, in either of which cases it shall be furnished by the Commissioner of Social Services without charge. The Commissioner of Social Services and any person authorized by him to conduct any hearing under the provisions of this section shall have power to administer oaths and take testimony under oath relative to the matter of the hearing and may subpoena witnesses and require the production of records, papers and documents pertinent to such hearing. No witness under subpoena authorized to be issued by the provisions of this section shall be excused from testifying or from producing records, papers or documents on the ground that such testimony or the production of such records or other documentary evidence would tend to incriminate him, but such evidence or the records or papers so produced shall not be used in any criminal proceeding against him. If any person disobeys such process or, having appeared in obedience thereto, refuses to answer any pertinent question put to him by the commissioner or his authorized agent or to produce any records and papers pursuant thereto, the commissioner or his agent may apply to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford or for the judicial district wherein the person resides, or to any judge of said court if the same is not in session, setting forth such disobedience to process or refusal to answer, and said court or such judge shall cite such person to appear before said court or such judge to answer such question or to produce such records and papers and, upon his refusal to do so, shall commit such person to a community correctional center until he testifies, but not for a longer period than sixty days. Notwithstanding the serving of the term of such commitment by any person, the commissioner or his agent may proceed with such inquiry and examination as if the witness had not previously been called upon to testify. Officers who serve subpoenas issued by the commissioner or under his authority and witnesses attending hearings conducted by him hereunder shall receive like fees and compensation as officers and witnesses in the courts of this state to be paid on vouchers of the commissioner on order of the Comptroller.

(1959, P.A. 96, S. 1; 1967, P.A. 759, S. 4; 1969, P.A. 297; 369, S. 1; P.A. 75-420, S. 4, 6; P.A. 77-274; 77-614, S. 608, 610; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 6, 127; P.A. 87-473, S. 3; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 91-133, S. 1; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; 93-262, S. 34, 87; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6; 95-360, S. 8, 32.)

History: 1967 act authorized appearance by a representative of aggrieved person as well as attorney; 1969 acts added Subdiv. (2) making transcription optional unless copy requested by aggrieved person in which case it is to be furnished without charge and replaced jails with community correctional centers; P.A. 75-420 replaced welfare commissioner with commissioner of social services; P.A. 77-274 required that hearing application be mailed within 60 rather than 30 days of decision; P.A. 77-614 replaced commissioner of social services with commissioner of income maintenance, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-280 replaced Hartford county with judicial district of Hartford-New Britain; P.A. 87-473 added “or if the application concerns a denial of or failure to provide emergency housing, the commissioner shall hold a fair hearing within 4 business days from receipt thereof, and shall make all reasonable efforts to provide notice of the time and place of the fair hearing to such aggrieved person at least 1 business day prior to said hearing”; P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 91-133 removed prohibition against hearings subsequent to the decease of the aggrieved person and authorized hearings without the personal appearance of the aggrieved person if such appearance is precluded by the person's mental or physical condition; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 93-262 replaced commissioner of income maintenance with commissioner of social services and allowed any person operating or applying for a license to operate a family day care home to make an application for a hearing, effective July 1, 1993; Sec. 17-2a transferred to Sec. 17b-60 in 1995; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 95-360 deleted family day care home operators and license applicants from those authorized to apply for a hearing, effective July 13, 1995.

See Sec. 52-260 re witness fees.

Annotations to former section 17-2a:

Where objection was made to constitutionality of Sec. 17-90 on the basis of violation of due process of law, held that hearing procedure set forth in this section and Sec. 17-2b satisfies requirements of due process. 152 C. 56. Cited. 165 C. 490; 170 C. 258; 172 C. 292; 177 C. 599; 179 C. 83; 189 C. 29; 191 C. 384; 204 C. 672; 209 C. 390; 214 C. 256; Id., 601; 222 C. 69; 226 C. 818.

Cited. 6 CA 47; 20 CA 470.

Cited. 30 CS 587; 31 CS 515; 32 CS 561; Id., 599; Id., 607; 34 CS 281; Id., 586; 35 CS 622; 40 CS 554.

Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 269; Id., 504; 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 85; Id., 138; Id., 338, 339; Id., 450, 647. Commissioner may subpoena witness but does not have to do so merely because appellant requests him to. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 291. Cited. Id., 506. Record did not furnish evidential support for hearing officer's determination, hence judgment for commissioner set aside. Id., 603.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 38 CA 522; 44 CA 143.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Peters v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 870 A.2d 448 (Conn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 870 A.2d 448 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 6× “intiffs attorney sent a letter to the department’s office of legal counsel requesting a hearing to challenge the amount of the lien, and stating his position that the lien should be reduced by one third for “attorneys’ fees incurred in the resolution of this matter Subsequently,…”

Ahern v. Thomas, 733 A.2d 756 (Conn. 1999). “” General Statutes § 17b-66 provides: “Any applicant or beneficiary aggrieved by a decision of the commissioner made without a fair hearing may request a hearing in accordance with the provisions of section 17b-60.” General Statutes § 17b-65 (a) provides in relevant part: “[T]he…”

Jarmon v. Comm'r of Soc. Servs., 807 A.2d 1109 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Eldridge, supra, 342 ; General Statutes § 17b-60 (right to administrative hearing within thirty days of request); General Statutes § 17b-61 (a) (right to final decision within sixty days of hearing).”

Parkhurst v. Wilson-Coker, 848 A.2d 515 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “In her view, she is entitled to a ruling reinstating, her son’s supplemental income benefits because (1) the hearing officer failed to schedule a hearing within the thirty day period established by General Statutes § 17b-60, (2) the hearing officer failed to issue her decision…”

Ward v. Thomas, 9 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D. Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “From this conclusion, defendant argues that Connecticut’s similar 60-day appeal provision, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17b-60, operates to bar the plaintiff subclass’ claim for AFDC underpayments.”

Cabasquini v. Comm'r of Soc. Servs., 662 A.2d 145 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). “to 1993) § 17-2a (now § 17b-60). See footnote 1. The parties do not dispute that the plaintiffs written authorization expired on July 15,1992, months before the defendant processed the plaintiff’s retroactive benefit checks.”

Toise v. Rowe, 687 A.2d 557 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). “General Statutes §§ 17-2a and 17-2b are now codified as §§ 17b-60 and 17b-61. Public Acts 1995, No.”

Handel v. Comm'r of Soc. Servs., 193 A.3d 90 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff claims that the department's decision that the applicant was ineligible for benefits for the months of March, April and May, 2014, because his available resources exceeded $1600 during those months, was not rendered within ninety days of the date that she requested…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.