Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-243 (2026)

Continuous jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Jurisdiction over benefits shall be continuous but the initiating of a valid appeal under section 31-242 or the pendency of valid appellate proceedings under section 31-249 shall, if the appellate tribunal has taken jurisdiction, stay any proceeding hereunder, but only in respect to the same period and the same parties, but shall not cause the cessation of payment of benefits as provided by section 31-242. Where the appellate tribunal has not taken jurisdiction, upon his own initiative, or upon application of any party in interest, the administrator, or the examiner designated by him, may, at any time within six months after the date of the original decision, or within such other time limits as may be applicable under section 31-273, review an award of benefits or the denial of a claim therefor, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect to claims, and may issue a new decision, which may award, terminate, continue, increase or decrease such benefits. Such new decision shall be appealable under the provisions of section 31-242 within the time prescribed in section 31-241, and where the claimant has been free from fault, a redetermination or new decision shall not affect benefits paid under a prior order. Any decision to review an award of benefits or the denial of a claim under this section shall be solely within the discretion of the administrator and shall not be appealable under the provisions of section 31-242.

(1949 Rev., S. 7515; 1971, P.A. 835, S. 24; P.A. 77-604, S. 20, 84; P.A. 92-210, S. 2.)

History: 1971 act specified effect of appeals on proceedings and payment of benefits, added reference to time limits “applicable under section 31-273” in provision re review and specified that new decision is appealable under Sec. 31-242 rather than subject to review; P.A. 77-604 made technical correction substituting “affect” for “effect”; P.A. 92-210 added language providing that the administrator or examiner may review an award of benefits or denial of a claim where the appellate tribunal has not taken jurisdiction, deleted requirement for a change in conditions as grounds for review, and added language providing that decision to review shall be solely within the discretion of the administrator and shall not be appealable under Sec. 31-242.

Permits change of decision because of modifying circumstances and is limited to that. 161 C. 362. A limitation on administrator's power to oppose plaintiff's appeal does not exist under statute. 192 C. 104. Cited. Id., 581.

Administrator without power to review a decision made more than 6 months previously. 20 CS 107. Recovery of overpayment, when. 30 CS 123.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1971–1984 · leading case: Finkenstein v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 470 A.2d 1196 (Conn. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Finkenstein v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 470 A.2d 1196 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 10× “To do otherwise would leave the administrator bound to advocate a position which, based upon the de novo hearing, he now recognizes as erroneous and not in accordance with the eligibility provisions established by the legislature.”

Cicala v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 288 A.2d 66 (Conn. 1971). · cites it 7× “As a condition precedent to a review of an award of benefits or denial of a claim therefor the administrator is permitted “on the ground of a change in conditions” to “review an award of benefits or the denial of a claim therefor, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in…”

Williams v. Adm'r, 303 A.2d 749 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1972). · cites it 6× “The commissioner, however, also ruled that § 31-243 of the General Statutes was applicable to this situation and that the plaintiff did not have to repay the benefits already received because she was not at fault.”

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.