Any person aggrieved by an order issued by a town, city or borough director of health may appeal to the Commissioner of Public Health not later than three business days after the date of such person's receipt of such order, who shall thereupon immediately notify the authority from whose order the appeal was taken, and examine into the merits of such case, and may vacate, modify or affirm such order.
(1949 Rev., S. 3865; P.A. 77-614, S. 323, 610; P.A. 93-381, S. 9, 39; P.A. 95-257, S. 12, 21, 58; P.A. 99-61; P.A. 03-252, S. 4.)
History: P.A. 77-614 replaced commissioner of health with commissioner of health services, effective January 1, 1979; Sec. 19-103 transferred to Sec. 19a-229 in 1983; P.A. 93-381 replaced commissioner of health services with commissioner of public health and addiction services, effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 95-257 replaced Commissioner and Department of Public Health and Addiction Services with Commissioner and Department of Public Health, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 99-61 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a), changing “within” to “not later than”, and added new Subsec. (b) re appeal of orders under Sec. 19a-111c; P.A. 03-252 deleted Subdiv. (a) designator, changed deadline for appeal from 48 hours after the making of the order to three business days after receipt of the order, and deleted former Subsec. (b) re certain appeals having such three business day deadline.
Annotations to former section 19-103:
Cited. 174 C. 195.
Cited. 21 CS 347. Section does not apply to appeals under Sec. 7-153. 26 CS 266.
Annotation to present section:
Authority granted to commissioner to examine into merits of appeal of an order, and to vacate, modify or affirm such order would have enabled commissioner to provide plaintiff with appropriate relief; thus, trial court improperly failed to dismiss plaintiff's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. 263 C. 558.
Notes of Decisions
Stepney, LLC v. Town of Fairfield, 821 A.2d 725 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 9× “5 On July 21, 2000, the plaintiff appealed from the order to the state board of health pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-229, 6 but thereafter withdrew the appeal.”
Pine v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 917 A.2d 590 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiffs, pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-229, 2 appealed from that decision to the defendant.”
Berka v. City of Middletown, 185 A.3d 596 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 19a-229. A consolidated administrative appeal hearing relating to both orders took place on February 20, 2015.”
River Bend Assocs., Inc. v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 809 A.2d 492 (Conn. 2002).
“Any permit denied by the Commissioner of Public Health, or a director of health or registered sanitarian shall be subject to hearing and appeal in the manner provided in section 19a-229. Any permit granted by said Commissioner of Public Health, or a director of health or…”
SGRITTA v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 37 A.3d 774 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” On December 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal with the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-229. The plaintiffs claimed that the order should not have been directed to them because, as arm’s length lessors, they were not involved in the operation…”
Karout v. McBride, 7 F. Supp. 3d 194 (D. Conn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 19a-229. Even if, as Defendants contend, a claim of selective enforcement was a defense that could have been pled in the appeal, the appellate tribunal did not have the authority to redress Plaintiffs injuries beyond vacating the NOV.”
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.