(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 153, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018) ; see General Statutes § 4-183 (j). It is tempting to say that the referee's error in admitting evidence of the complainant's use of medications was harmless; see, e.g., Concerned Citizens of Sterling, Inc . v. Connecticut Siting Council , 215 Conn. 474, 488–89, 576 A.2d 510 (1990) ; insofar as the referee awarded $50,000 in damages, which falls at the lower end of what she identified as the prevailing range of awards for garden-variety emotional distress damages.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 144, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). The following additional procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this claim.
It follows that such a finding must be predicated on evidence produced by the intervening party alleging an unreasonable environmental impairment. See Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 141, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018) ("The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA.... An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred."
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 153–54, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). A witness may be qualified as an expert on the basis of knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or otherwise.
Mr. DiGregorio simply made an adverse finding against Petitioner, which in itself is not sufficient to prove bias. See Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & EnvironmentalProtection, 178 A.3d 1043, 1063 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018) (citing State v. Fullwood, 484 A.2d 435, 440 (Conn. 1984)).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 139–40, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). When looking at chronicity, a term that appears in the state regulations relating to the central registry, the department is to consider, inter alia, whether "there is a pattern or chronic nature to the neglect regardless of the measurable impact to the victim"; Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a-101k-3 (e) (3); and whether "there was a previous substantiation of neglect by the individual responsible for the current abuse or neglect for an incident or conduct unrelated to the current incident or conduct ...."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 139–40, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). Moreover, "[a]lthough the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a question of law ... it is the well established practice of [our appellate courts] to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement.... It is also well established that courts should accord deference to an agency's formally articulated interpretation of a statute when that interpretation is both time-tested and reasonable."
The question of whether the right to fundamental fairness has been violated in administrative proceedings is a question of law over which our review is plenary. Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 149, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). Although the parties in their appellate briefs direct us to cases that address the fundamental fairness of actual hearings held by various administrative agencies, no administrative evidentiary hearing was in fact held in the present case.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 149, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018), citing FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council , 313 Conn. 669, 711, 99 A.3d 1038 (2014)."Workers' compensation hearings must be conducted in a fundamentally fair manner so as not to violate the rules of due process.... A fundamental principle of due process is that each party has the right to receive notice of a hearing, and the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection, 179 Conn.App. 127, 139, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). "Even as to questions of law, [t]he court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion ... Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts."