We disagree with the defendant and the Appellate Court that "[t]his case involves a systemic flaw the nature of which makes it difficult to assess its effects on the defendant." State v. Anderson, supra, 55 Conn. App. 75. The development of our case law in this area provides for just this sort of assessment. Well before we exercised our supervisory authority in State v. Brown, supra, 235 Conn. 502, trial courts were called upon to use their discretion to protect criminal defendants' rights to a fair trial when there were allegations of jury misconduct. See, e.g., State v. Cubano, supra, 203 Conn. 81 (juror shocked that personal friend would associate with defendant); State v. Asherman, supra, 193 Conn. 695 (juror copied definition from dictionary; jurors conducted experiment during deliberations with articles brought from home); State v. McCall, supra, 187 Conn. 73 (juror's son had psychiatric symptoms similar to defendant's).
Decided December 13, 1999 The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 75 (AC 18550), is denied.
Thus, the award of reasonable attorney's fees without a determination of the amount of the attorney's fees is not appealable for lack of a final judgment. See Liano v. Bridgeport, 55 Conn. App. 75, 80, 737 A.2d 983 (portion of appeal challenging workers' compensation review board's decision remanding issue of attorney's fees to commissioner for finding of reasonableness dismissed for lack of final judgment), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909, 743 A.2d 619 (1999). The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the arbitrators' finding that the noise in the transmission of the plaintiffs' car did not substantially impair the car's use, safety or value.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Liano v. Bridgeport, 55 Conn. App. 75, 83-84, 737 A.2d 983, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909, 743 A.2d 619 (1999). Here, the issue is whether the commissioner properly granted the defendant equitable relief under the third ground for modification.
See Marone v. Waterbury, supra, 244 Conn. 11, n. 10. Second, we must address whether the commissioner had the authority to modify the award pursuant to General Statutes § 31-315. See also Liano v. Bridgeport, 55 Conn. App. 75, 737 A.2d 983 (1999), in which we applied the Marone decision to facts similar to those in the present case. A
"Claims that are not adequately briefed are considered abandoned." Liano v. Bridgeport, 55 Conn.App. 75, 77 n. 1, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909 (1999). "[M]ere naked statements, unsupported by citations of authorities constitute inadequate briefing and merit no consideration . . . Bare assertions without citation to legal authority constitutes abandonment of the issue."
The plaintiff has failed to brief these issues and to cite legal authority, and, therefore, these issues could be considered abandoned. CT Page 8725Liano v. City of Bridgeport, 55 Conn. App. 75, 85 n. 1, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909 (1999). It should be noted that the plaintiff did not dispute the receipt of the GA and SAGA benefits for which reimbursement was claimed before the hearing officer, nor does the plaintiff dispute the receipt of those funds here.
We do not think such action was merited on the basis of a changed condition of fact or under the equitable considerations contemplated by § 31-315 C.G.S., which allow a trier to extend equitable relief in situations involving accident, mistakes of fact, and fraud but not mistakes of law. Liano v. Bridgeport, 55 Conn. App. 75, 84 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909 (1999). Consistent with this philosophy,