Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Ser

15 Citing cases

  1. Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services

    259 Conn. 288 (Conn. 2002)   Cited 35 times
    Granting relief, under a good reason standard, for ineffective representation by counsel

    " and (2) "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to present additional evidence upon the remand?" Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 254 Conn. 926, 761 A.2d 754 (2000). The following additional factual and procedural history is relevant to the resolution of this appeal and cross appeal. "In August, 1993, the plaintiff was employed as a registered nurse's aide at Shelton Lakes. . . . On August 18, 1993, Shelton Lakes terminated the plaintiff's employment on the basis of allegations of patient abuse and reported the accusations to the department.

  2. Commission on H. Rights, Opp. v. Wal-Mart

    2002 Ct. Sup. 25 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000); Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Commission Human Rights and Opportunities, 45 Conn. Sup. 276, 283, aff'd., 48 Conn. App. 561, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 924 (1998) (in applying the substantial evidence test, court defers to agency's decision on matters of proof). As to the human rights referee's conclusions 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. . . ."

  3. Modwadia v. Garcia

    2001 Ct. Sup. 15995 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    Aggrievement is found as the plaintiff has been suspended from the WIC program for a period of three years. The standard of review of this appeal has been set forth in Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000): We begin our analysis by noting that our review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by the [UAPA].

  4. NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION v. STATE, CHRO

    2001 Ct. Sup. 13468 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Department of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000); Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities, 45 Conn. Sup. 276, 283 (1997), aff'd, 48 Conn. App. 561, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 924 (1998) (in applying the substantial evidence test, court defers to agency's decision on matters of proof). The plaintiff and defendants agree that this is a "disparate treatment" case, with no direct proof of discriminatory animus.

  5. International Data v. Commission on Human

    2001 Ct. Sup. 9780 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000); Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities, 45 Conn. Sup. 276, 283 (1997), aff'd, 48 Conn. App. 561, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 924 (1998) (in applying the substantial evidence test, court defers to agency's decision on matters of proof). As to the human rights referee's conclusions 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. . . ."

  6. Szewczyk v. State Department, Social S.

    2001 Ct. Sup. 8523 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000). 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.

  7. Lantiere v. State

    2001 Ct. Sup. 8420 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    The FHO did not find this position to be credible. (Final Decision, ROR, p. 101). The role of the trial court in this appeal is not to retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of DSS. Rather, the court must sustain the agency's factual determinations and affirm its decision if there is substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole to support it. Salmon v. Department of Public Health and Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-661 (2000), cert. granted on other grounds 254 Conn. 926 (2000). The court finds that the record contains substantial evidence which the FHO chose to credit to support its findings.

  8. Nunez v. Garcia

    2001 Ct. Sup. 5833 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    The plaintiffs are aggrieved as they have been disqualified from participating in the WIC program for three years. The standard of review of this appeal has been set forth in Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000): We begin our analysis by noting that our review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by the [UAPA].

  9. Commission on Human Rt. v. Chro.

    2001 Ct. Sup. 5685 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61, cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000); Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Commission Human Rights and Opportunities, 45 Conn. Sup. 276, 283, aff'd, 48 Conn. App. 561, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 924 (1998) (in applying the substantial evidence test, court defers to agency's decision on matters of proof). The human rights referee concluded that factually the complainants did not establish a prima facie case of a violation of the Equal Pay Act.

  10. McGarry v. State Board of Education

    2001 Ct. Sup. 4905 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    The role of the trial court in this appeal with regard to questions of fact is not to retry the or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency. Rather the court must sustain the SB's factual determination and affirm its decision if there is substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole to support it. Salmon v. Dept. of Public Health and Addiction Services, 58 Conn. App. 642, 660-61 (2000), cert. granted on other grounds, 254 Conn. 926 (2000). Accordingly, the court finds for the defendants on this issue.